i dont have to pay cause i dont feel like it

[bmielke]

I was worried Farmer Giles didn't post all day yesterday, I was afraid we lost him.

[The Operative]

I was worried Farmer Giles didn't post all day yesterday, I was afraid we lost him.

I am a little curious why F.G. thinks the IFRS definition of income is important to the average individual. I am also curious as to why he emphasized the portion of the definition by placing it in bold type and if he believes it is supposed to have any extra significance. However, I am leery of having to wade through what will probably be a mostly incomprehensible response.

[Imalawman]

the query us mere villagers have is "what on earth is income"? and "how did I get any". Seeing as how most of your colleagues write, I bet you do often question why anyone would pay you anything. Understandable confusion.

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". To what end? Chances are, if this "naysayer" was one of our own, you did not understand the concept that he/she was getting at. That distinction, if there is a meaningful distinction, doesn't really have anything to do with whether an item of income is taxable. Someone here has a tagline that expresses this dichotomy; "from any source derived" is a term of limitation. Riiiiiight, is it possible to be that intellectually dishonest? So your point is that if you get income by a means other than by derivation, it is not taxable? Really, that's your argument?

Glenshaw is interesting because it defines how one obtains income after all: by accession. which has got to be different than succession. WTF? Who gives a shit whether income is derived or accrued by succession, cessation, accession, procession, profession, confession, or conversation? It doesn't matter. If you increase your wealth by any means its taxable unless it's specifically excluded by the tax code.There is no tax on success, in America, unless you get mugged. True, we do not tax people for being "successful" - whatever that means. We do tax the hell out of their income if they derived or accrued a lot of wealth in the process of being successful.

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. Wow, just wow. You might as well say, "monkeys fling crap, that isn't succession, it's having fun with poo - therefore, my wages aren't taxable." That would actually make more sense than what you just wrote.

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? The degree to which you do not understand even the basic concepts of economics and accounting is simply staggering. To say you even possess an elementary understanding of taxation would be an exaggeration of epic proportions.

[Prof]

I do have a question for Farmer. Why the fixation on admiralty jurisdiction, a specialized practice in the federal courts if there ever was one. Originally arising in equity, and not law, the admiralty practice involves boats, sailors, and goods at sea. I know that the Constitution, at Art. III, provides for admiralty jurisdiction, but Art. III also grants jurisdiction to the US Courts for matters arising under the Constitution (tax is provided for in the Constitution) and federal statutes -- e.g., the IRC.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

I see frequent references to the Huntress case, which is available on the 'net, and which I have read, and does refer to revenue cases in admiralty but only as to imposts and the like where the revenue issue relates to maritime transport of goods. So, tell me, in clear English, why an admiralty case about a missing box of goods with a very long discussion ["Note"] of the constitutionality of admiralty jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act, including the revenue aspects of admiralty, which are (and were historically) tried without a jury because actions in equity do not use juries -- somehow states or creates a "fact" that all "revenue" cases arise under admiralty. First, this is a a U. S. District Court in Maine (as UGA has subsequently posted/noted), so the precedential value is limited. Also, it is a very old case, dated 1840. Finally, in truth and in fact, tax cases simply do not arise under admiralty jurisdiction, as literally thousands of District and Tax Court cases reported in the various official reporters clearly show. And, no appeallate court has ever rejected a tax case because it was not filed under or did not properly invoke the admiralty jurisdiction provisions of the statutes and rules.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Nikki]

The tag line (below) being questioned is a direct quote from one of Farmer's like-minded predecessors posts here at Q.

[Famspear]

Well, it's not really a limerick, but......

Farmer Giles, Farmer Giles,
You could fill up lots of files.
Incoherence and denials,
Stacking up in great big piles,
Gibberish for miles and miles:
The work of Farmer Giles.

[Kimokeo]

"There is no tax on success, in America, unless you get mugged."

That is true. Income derived from crime is taxable.

I wonder if the IRS watches court cases of stolen goods. I'd suspect that the income from their theft isn't being reported. FMV? If you return the goods, are you still subject to tax on the ill gotten gains?

[BBFlatt]

I think it depends on whether or not you return the property in the same taxable year as you stole it.

[Arthur Rubin]

I wonder if the IRS watches court cases of stolen goods. I'd suspect that the income from their theft isn't being reported. FMV? If you return the goods, are you still subject to tax on the ill gotten gains?

I can't find the actual court cases, but embezzlement (sp?) income is taxable when the person receives the funds, and is deductible when returned, but not under the "claim of right" doctrine, so the deduction usually doesn't do the criminal any good.

[Farmer Giles]

like I said when I first signed up here a few days back, I'm not a big follower of these "admiralty" or whatever arguements. its doesnt really matter. A court case is created by one thing only, and thats a stated controversy. Im sure every law is more or less legal and cases are generally tried in the right court.

Now we all know the Constitution has tax powers, does "internal revenue" really arise under those grants? for some reason Title 26 is considered "private law".

If you increase your wealth by any means its taxable unless it's specifically excluded by the tax code.

and thats point, as illustrated by the respected Intl Accountants Standard, any increase must properly be reduced by the "original equity contribution". Its easy to mistake a mere receipt for an "increase". And there's a reason the tax laws use this language of "any source derived". theres no tax on apples growing on my trees, theres no tax when i pick them, and theres no tax when they get eaten. What else can you really do with an apple?

any "transaction" can just as easily be characterized in some fiscally neutral manner. and this shows up even within the tax system, where it is for example advantageous to borrow against the value of property rather than sell to obtain that value, which is called capital gains. no tax on borrowing and lending...or compensation for losses...or any other even exchange.

[Imalawman]

I wonder if the IRS watches court cases of stolen goods. I'd suspect that the income from their theft isn't being reported. FMV? If you return the goods, are you still subject to tax on the ill gotten gains?

I can't find the actual court cases, but embezzlement (sp?) income is taxable when the person receives the funds, and is deductible when returned, but not under the "claim of right" doctrine, so the deduction usually doesn't do the criminal any good.

Actually, if the reimbursement occurs during the same year, then it will reduce the income from the embezzlement. Same with other theft crimes. I have a few cases in my files I could dig out if you really want.

[Nikki]

...
Now we all know the Constitution has tax powers, does "internal revenue" really arise under those grants? for some reason Title 26 is considered "private law".
...

Considered so by whom? Do you have any citations to anyone who matters?

And what's the relevant definition of "private law" and how does that make any difference?

[Farmer Giles]

Considered so by whom? Do you have any citations to anyone who matters?

it says so on the cover.

why would private law be important? because that means it gets invoked by commerce with the government. It has no inherent application, the subject of "income" has to come up. thats why theres all these weird twists and turns between the IRS and the ATF, somewhere in all that are Constitutional revenue issues and other, business or trade matters, lke social security in its relation to employment.

[Brandybuck]

it says so on the cover.

What cover?!?!

[Imalawman]

Considered so by whom? Do you have any citations to anyone who matters?

it says so on the cover.

why would private law be important? because that means it gets invoked by commerce with the government. It has no inherent application, the subject of "income" has to come up. thats why theres all these weird twists and turns between the IRS and the ATF, somewhere in all that are Constitutional revenue issues and other, business or trade matters, lke social security in its relation to employment.

The world must seem like a scary, confusing place to you. I'm sorry.

[wserra]

why would private law be important? because that means it gets invoked by commerce with the government.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

It has no inherent application, the subject of "income" has to come up.

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

thats why theres all these weird twists and turns between the IRS and the ATF,

All mimsy were the borogoves,

somewhere in all that are Constitutional revenue issues and other, business or trade matters, lke social security in its relation to employment.

And the mome raths outgrabe.

I'm not sure that you realize it, but Lewis Carroll makes far more sense.

[Prof]

...
Now we all know the Constitution has tax powers, does "internal revenue" really arise under those grants? for some reason Title 26 is considered "private law".
...

Considered so by whom? Do you have any citations to anyone who matters?

And what's the relevant definition of "private law"and how does that make any difference?

That's an interesting comment, Farmer, since I am looking at the paper back edition of the IRC, Vol. 1, which says nothing about "private law" on the covery or anywhere else. Also, sec. 1(a) of the IRC states:

MARRIED INDIVIDUALS FILING JOINT RETURNS AND SURVIVING SPOUSES.-- There is herby imposed on the taxable income of --

The notes on the history of the statute cite as a source for this statute P.L. 101-508. I am sure you understand that P.L. is a reference to a PUBLIC LAW.

So, once again, inquiring minds want to know, what is the source of your allegation that the IRC is somehow private law?

[Farmer Giles]

...
Now we all know the Constitution has tax powers, does "internal revenue" really arise under those grants? for some reason Title 26 is considered "private law".
...

Considered so by whom? Do you have any citations to anyone who matters?

And what's the relevant definition of "private law"and how does that make any difference?

That's an interesting comment, Farmer, since I am looking at the paper back edition of the IRC, Vol. 1, which says nothing about "private law" on the covery or anywhere else. Also, sec. 1(a) of the IRC states:

MARRIED INDIVIDUALS FILING JOINT RETURNS AND SURVIVING SPOUSES.-- There is herby imposed on the taxable income of --

The notes on the history of the statute cite as a source for this statute P.L. 101-508. I am sure you understand that P.L. is a reference to a PUBLIC LAW.

So, once again, inquiring minds want to know, what is the source of your allegation that the IRC is somehow private law?

because its based on income, and the whole thing is private. most of compliance is carried out by the participants themselves. you have to sign up to get in. you cant even pay with any money. its an advalorem excise tax. it has nothing to do with economics, it reads exactly like a franchising contract. The only way to define 'gross income' is if there is some source where I end up deriving a benefit. its not possible to just randomly start in the middle of the woods and look for 'income'. unlikethe real taxes: duties, imposts, fees and excises. i dont have to think about papers or responsibility, it just shows up in the price. the irc is too complicated to be binding as public law, the average person cant be otherwise expected to understand it and it has no inherent application. its really a bunch of administrative rules that have somehow been criminalized. the only place btw where "adminstrative" gets a criminal penalty is in the Admiralty jurisdiciton.

[Farmer Giles]

So your point is that if you get income by a means other than by derivation, it is not taxable?

if I get income the law says its taxable. The only way to get any income is to derive it. The only way to derive this benefit is in the presence of a 3rd party. the tax is indirect, its a "cut of the profits". there would have to be some kind of business relationship to even establish this occuring.

my only point before is that a lot of 1099's are totally arbitray. otherwise the other info usualy get issued through agreements like the W4. people think income is economy and it isnt, its fiscal, by definition. its not a thing, you cant observe it happening without some point of departure (the voyage)

[Cpt Banjo]

you have to sign up to get in.

If you're suggesting that you're not subject to the income tax unless you "sign up" for something, like getting an SSN, you're profoundly wrong.

its [sic] an advalorem excise tax.

An ad valorem excise tax is like a four-sided triangle. The concept is self-contradictory. An ad valorem tax is a direct tax, constitutionally speaking; an income tax is an excise.