i dont have to pay cause i dont feel like it

[Famspear]

......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.

No, Farmer Giles. There is no requirement for the presence of a 3rd party.

............my only point before is that a lot of 1099's are totally arbitray [sic]. otherwise the other info usualy [sic] 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)

Farmer Giles, do you have any close relatives named Van Pelt?

........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.

Earth calling Farmer Giles.... Earth calling Farmer Giles, come in, Farmer Giles.....

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.

Earth calling Farmer Giles......

.............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 [sic].

Multiple choice. Farmer Giles is a refugee from:

A. Monty Python's The Lumberjack Song.

B. Firesign Theatre's How Can You Be in Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere At All.

C. National Lampoon's Lemmings.

D. Revolution 9 on The White Album.

[Nikki]

None of the above.

He has tried to fly too many times, but each time he failed to miss hitting the ground.

[Red Cedar PM]

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".

Hey buddy, I'm an accountant so let me try and explain to you what the IASB is trying to say in that definition. Basically for a business, any increases in wealth are income unless it is a transaction from the owners of the business. For example, if a business sells widgets to a customer, the money they receive is income. If a business issues shares of stock, the money they receive is not income because it is an equity transaction from the owners - even though the wealth of the business has increased, it is due to a transaction with the owners and is therefore not income.

Just to clarify, all receipts are not exactly increases in wealth. If you receive principal payments on a loan you made to someone, that is a return of capital and your wealth has not increased - you basically traded one asset that you had basis in (the loan receivable) for another (cash). If you receive interest payments on the loan however, your wealth has increased and you have income.

For an indivdual this does not apply, because an individual is not a business entity that has owners. Any increase in your wealth is income and is taxable unless it is specifically exempted by the tax code.

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?

You are right that there is no tax on the apples when they grow, when you pick them, or when you eat them, but that's not all you can do with an apple. There would still be tax on the income you derive if you sell the apples or the tree, and there may be property taxes on the land where the tree is planted.

[The Operative]

Now we all know the Constitution has tax powers, does "internal revenue" really arise under those grants?

Yes, it does. What do you believe is the common definition of "internal revenue?"

for some reason Title 26 is considered "private law".

Nobody that matters considers it "private law." However, Title 26 is considered to be "prima facie" law. That basically means that Title 26 is sufficient evidence of the various tax related positive laws passed by Congress. Unless a party in a case can show that Title 26 does not accurately reflect the positive law passed by Congress, Title 26 is quoted as law. For all intents and purposes, Title 26 IS 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".

No, that is not what the IFRS definition means. If an owner of a business invests additional money or other items of value into the business, THAT money is not income. However, if the business uses that money to purchase materials which the business uses to create a product which is subsequently sold, the amount for which the product is sold, less the cost of the materials, labor, and overhead, is income.

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.

There is no tax on apples growing on your trees, however, it is within the power of the government to place an additional tax on people who grow apples and subsequently sell them.

What else can you really do with an apple?

You can sell it. If you sell your apples, the money you receive for those sales less any costs incurred in taking care of the trees for the year is income and is taxable. Note that it is not a tax on apples, it is a tax on the income you receive from selling the apples.

any "transaction" can just as easily be characterized in some fiscally neutral manner.

No, it can't.

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.

When you borrow money against the value of property, you are pledging all or a portion of that property as collateral for the loan. If you do not pay back the loan, the lender can recover the collateral and sell it to cover the loan that was made to you. A loan is not an accession to wealth because you are not gaining anything. Geez man, my four-year-old niece understands that.

no tax on borrowing and lending...or compensation for losses...or any other even exchange.

An even exchange occurs when one person that has an object for which they paid $1,000 exchanges that with another person's object which the second person also paid $1,000. If I find a ring in my backyard that is worth $4,000 and I trade that ring to my next door neighbor for his car that is worth $4,000, is that an even exchange? Yes. However, the tax implications are different between us. He had paid money for his car and his basis in the car was $4,000 or higher. He now has the ring. If he subsequently sells the ring for $4,500. He has a $500 gain because his basis in the object he exchanged to obtain the ring was $4,000. On the other hand, I did not pay anything for the ring. I found it in my backyard. My basis in the ring was $0. Therefore, my basis in the car is also $0. If I subsequently sell the car for $3,800, I have a $3,800 gain.

[The Operative]

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,

Not all of Title 26 concerns income taxes. There are other taxes contained within that title.

and the whole thing is private.

You are confused about the differences between "private law" and "public law." Private law are the bodies of law that concern relationships between individuals or businesses. For example, when a business agrees to provide a particular quantity of product for a certain amount of money to another business or individual, once the second party pays the money, the business has to provide the product. If the business refuses to provide the product, the second party can sue the business under the applicable contract law. Those contract laws, as enacted in each state, are private laws.

Public laws are those laws enacted by a government that involve the government. The government is not involved in the previous example of a sales contract between companies or individuals. The government's involvement only concerns the income a business or individual earns over a period of time.

To summarize, disagreements over the terms or performance of a contract is generally covered under private law. Taxes levied by a government is covered under public law.

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.

You are going to have to do better than that if you want that "Sooey Master of Word Salad" title. Though, you are getting pretty good at spouting nonsense.

If a person works for someone else or a business, the employment is the source. The compensation a person receives in exchange for performing work for the employer is income. That is a fact and no amount of twisting of definitions or any other excuses you think you may have is going to change that. WAGES ARE INCOME and are taxed by the government through the various public laws passed by Congress concerning income taxes.

[Farmer Giles]

If an owner of a business invests additional money or other items of value into the business, THAT money is not income. However, if the business uses that money to purchase materials which the business uses to create a product which is subsequently sold, the amount for which the product is sold, less the cost of the materials, labor, and overhead, is income.

theyre both the same thing. or I can characterize the transaction in the fiscally neutral way, as investment. maybe the grocery store should 1099 you for the groceries you just bought, since you sold them some money.

anything can be structured, its just conceptual. "If I did this" and "If I did that". none of this really happens except on paper. thats why income doesnt depend on being sales or wages or whatever, its ALL income from ANY source derived, INCLUDING such items.

the basis cost in any transaction is the total loss incurred, not "what I paid for it". Find a ring and its yours; lose it and see if you still have it. My property is my property. Replacing one thing for another thing of the same value is neutral. Yet thats all that ever happens.

yet income exists, and so does title 26. so it has an application by attachment. random conclusions are inadmissible.

Since it seems to be agreed that borrowing and lending are excluded from income, any economy can be viewed in those terms. I'll just lend efforts instead of render services.

This all comes down to the fallacy of popular delusions, that administrative concepts can be 'seen' and 'touched'.

[Red Cedar PM]

If an owner of a business invests additional money or other items of value into the business, THAT money is not income. However, if the business uses that money to purchase materials which the business uses to create a product which is subsequently sold, the amount for which the product is sold, less the cost of the materials, labor, and overhead, is income.

theyre both the same thing. or I can characterize the transaction in the fiscally neutral way, as investment. maybe the grocery store should 1099 you for the groceries you just bought, since you sold them some money.

anything can be structured, its just conceptual. "If I did this" and "If I did that". none of this really happens except on paper. thats why income doesnt depend on being sales or wages or whatever, its ALL income from ANY source derived, INCLUDING such items.

the basis cost in any transaction is the total loss incurred, not "what I paid for it". Find a ring and its yours; lose it and see if you still have it. My property is my property. Replacing one thing for another thing of the same value is neutral. Yet thats all that ever happens.

yet income exists, and so does title 26. so it has an application by attachment. random conclusions are inadmissible.

Since it seems to be agreed that borrowing and lending are excluded from income, any economy can be viewed in those terms. I'll just lend efforts instead of render services.

This all comes down to the fallacy of popular delusions, that administrative concepts can be 'seen' and 'touched'.

The concept of income is not difficult but you really have no idea - and reading SuiJuris is not going to help. If you really want to learn it I suggest you take an introductory accounting class at your local community college.

[Gregg]

Point of order!

Does this community really NEED another gibberish spouting narcissistic blowhard who thinks he's unlocked the secrets of life, the universe and everything by reading the sovereign idiot section of Sui?

I just spent 5 minutes trying to figure out what exactly this nutcase was trying to say, and to be honest, I don't just want my 5 minutes back, I want interest on it.

[Pottapaug1938]

Point of order!

Does this community really NEED another gibberish spouting narcissistic blowhard who thinks he's unlocked the secrets of life, the universe and everything by reading the sovereign idiot section of Sui?

I just spent 5 minutes trying to figure out what exactly this nutcase was trying to say, and to be honest, I don't just want my 5 minutes back, I want interest on it.

Don't bother trying to figure it out. He doesn't know what he's saying, either. Reading his posts is like reading what Lyndon La Rouche writes, except that La Rouche writes more comprehensibly.

[Farmer Giles]

Multiple choice. Farmer Giles is a refugee from:

A. Monty Python's The Lumberjack Song.

B. Firesign Theatre's How Can You Be in Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere At All.

C. National Lampoon's Lemmings.

D. Revolution 9 on The White Album.

B, for sure. More like, "the Argument Clinic". Seems Quatloos has some precedent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

"this isnt an arguement, it just contradiction."

[The Operative]

If an owner of a business invests additional money or other items of value into the business, THAT money is not income. However, if the business uses that money to purchase materials which the business uses to create a product which is subsequently sold, the amount for which the product is sold, less the cost of the materials, labor, and overhead, is income.

theyre both the same thing. or I can characterize the transaction in the fiscally neutral way, as investment. maybe the grocery store should 1099 you for the groceries you just bought, since you sold them some money.

No, they are not the same thing. If I pay the grocery store $3.50 for a half-gallon of O.J., the grocery store has gross revenue of $3.50. If the grocery store paid the distributor $2 per half-gallon and the store has another $1.00 in overhead expenses, then the store has a net income of $0.50. That income does not become owner's equity until AFTER TAXES. The transaction may be fiscally neutral FOR ME, but it is NOT fiscally neutral for the store. If the store puts a price on it, that is not the amount they are allowed to subtract from revenue. The amounts they are allowed to subtract from revenue is the price the store paid to the distributor and the associated expenses with providing the product in the store and completing the transaction.

If two people join together to start a company, the money that those two people invest in THEIR company OUT OF THEIR OWN FUNDS becomes equity in that company. It does not go through the revenue account first. That investment in the company is not taxable to the company because it is assumed that it was income for the two individuals at some point in the past.

anything can be structured, its just conceptual. "If I did this" and "If I did that". none of this really happens except on paper. thats why income doesnt depend on being sales or wages or whatever, its ALL income from ANY source derived, INCLUDING such items.

the basis cost in any transaction is the total loss incurred, not "what I paid for it". Find a ring and its yours; lose it and see if you still have it. My property is my property. Replacing one thing for another thing of the same value is neutral. Yet thats all that ever happens.

Only in Farmer Giles la-la land. In the real world, value and basis are not the same thing. The basis for something is what you paid for it. Basis is also the amount that is subtracted from the selling price to determine if there was a gain.

yet income exists, and so does title 26. so it has an application by attachment. random conclusions are inadmissible.

Keep working at it, you'll be award that "Sooey Master of Word Salad" title any day now.

Since it seems to be agreed that borrowing and lending are excluded from income, any economy can be viewed in those terms. I'll just lend efforts instead of render services.

This all comes down to the fallacy of popular delusions, that administrative concepts can be 'seen' and 'touched'.

You cannot lend services in that manner. How are you going to retrieve the work you performed at a later date? Once the work is performed, it is done. The effort expended is gone forever and is now a part of the product that was created. The business cannot simply take the product apart and restore that effort back to you. The only thing they can do is to compensate you with money or something else of value. Once you expend the labor and receive compensation, YOU HAVE INCOME. Nothing you say will change that fact. Nobody that matters will agree with your silly theory.

[grixit]

Multiple choice. Farmer Giles is a refugee from:

A. Monty Python's The Lumberjack Song.

B. Firesign Theatre's How Can You Be in Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere At All.

C. National Lampoon's Lemmings.

D. Revolution 9 on The White Album.

B, for sure. More like, "the Argument Clinic". Seems Quatloos has some precedent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

"this isnt an arguement, it just contradiction."

Farmer Giles of Ham : The Rise and Wonderful Adventures of Farmer Giles, Lord of Tame, Count of Worminghall, and King of the Little Kingdom by J. R. R. Tolkien

[wserra]

One more time, as simply as possible. I'll do my best to avoid the sarcasm (although I may employ dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire).

I can characterize the transaction

That's the heart of it - that you characterize things. In terms of interpreting the law, you don't count. Neither do I. If you want to argue that a state has no power to require drivers to possess driver's licenses, you must cite to a person or body that does count - legislature, court, regulatory agency. And you can't cite something that doesn't affirm your proposition, and then complete the argument with "I interpret that to mean" or "I can characterize", because your opinion doesn't count. You can't cite any authority for the above thesis, or for the thesis that you need not pay tax on income, or for the other stuff I saw argued on suijuris during the brief times I posted there, because there isn't any. It's wrong.

Will you occasionally win low-level legal battles over things like traffic tickets or domestic assaults in which the complainant wishes to drop the charges? Sure. No one really cares enough to spend much effort on those things. But try these arguments in a more serious context - like fighting an indictment for tax evasion - and not only will you lose, but it will be a difficult lesson.

[Pottapaug1938]

Wsera's post reminds me of a post by a redemptionist in Hawaii, a few years back. She crowed about how she got out of some sort of traffic offense by citing the UCC to the cop and "accepting for value" the traffic ticket. The cop probably thought something like "if I arrest this lunatic, the guys down at the station are going to have to deal with her, and they will be extremely p*ssed off at me for having inflicted her on them. Better to just let her go, and not have to deal with her again -- I hope".

[silversopp]

or I can characterize the transaction in the fiscally neutral way, as investment. maybe the grocery store should 1099 you for the groceries you just bought, since you sold them some money.

What is your objection to taking a basic accounting course at your local community college?

the basis cost in any transaction is the total loss incurred, not "what I paid for it".

You would benefit greatly from a basic accounting course. Seriously, if you're this interested in taxes, why would you avoid education on the matter?

I'll just lend efforts instead of render services.

How would you go about "lending effort"?

You know, you don't necessarily have to PAY for the accounting class. If you just find out when the accounting class meets, show up and sit in the back of the room. You can listen in on the lectures. It's a great way to get education for someone in your economic condition.

[Pottapaug1938]

or I can characterize the transaction in the fiscally neutral way, as investment. maybe the grocery store should 1099 you for the groceries you just bought, since you sold them some money.

What is your objection to taking a basic accounting course at your local community college?

the basis cost in any transaction is the total loss incurred, not "what I paid for it".

You would benefit greatly from a basic accounting course. Seriously, if you're this interested in taxes, why would you avoid education on the matter?

I'll just lend efforts instead of render services.

How would you go about "lending effort"?

You know, you don't necessarily have to PAY for the accounting class. If you just find out when the accounting class meets, show up and sit in the back of the room. You can listen in on the lectures. It's a great way to get education for someone in your economic condition.

He probably wouldn't take the course because he thinks he's got it all figured out already. The facts would only confuse him.

[silversopp]

He probably wouldn't take the course because he thinks he's got it all figured out already. The facts would only confuse him.

You're probably right.

Given that's its pretty apparent this guy is uneducated, he's probably not making much money. And it seems that most folks only buy into this nonsense when they're desparate. So he probably cannot make ends meet, or cannot achieve the standard of living that he desires.

He'll benefit much more from education than this tax protester nonsense. After all was said and done, I paid about 11% in income taxes last year. A good education will give you much more than a 11% increase in your earnings. And you won't have to pay fines and interest on back taxes when you get caught by the IRS. It should be a no brainer!

[Farmer Giles]

So what I'm really missing here is some more scholastic brainwashing? Thats what this is really about, isnt' it... seems a nerve's been touched. Sounds like you are all afraid of losing your jobs or something. I'm sure everyone is more or less useful, if you ever had to actually be productive it helps to be good with numbers.

But I dont have these problems, in my grocery store we spend all our inventory... we spend it all on purchasing money from the customers.

In your grocery we can just bond the whole business, and I'll credit you for the value. Then I'll sell the inventory like a normal operation, and everything will be an even-exchange.

"lending efforts" is a common phrase from the English language. If after all your alleged schooling, you still never heard of it, no more classes are going to help.

[The Operative]

So what I'm really missing here is some more scholastic brainwashing? Thats what this is really about, isnt' it... seems a nerve's been touched. Sounds like you are all afraid of losing your jobs or something. I'm sure everyone is more or less useful, if you ever had to actually be productive it helps to be good with numbers.

But I dont have these problems, in my grocery store we spend all our inventory... we spend it all on purchasing money from the customers.

In your grocery we can just bond the whole business, and I'll credit you for the value. Then I'll sell the inventory like a normal operation, and everything will be an even-exchange.

"lending efforts" is a common phrase from the English language. If after all your alleged schooling, you still never heard of it, no more classes are going to help.

Typical nonsense. What we are telling you is not all from our educations, IT IS SIMPLE COMMON SENSE. We are telling you to take a course, because you don't have the level of common sense of my four-year-old niece.

Look, one of the primary purposes of a business is to make a profit. Profit is created by selling a product or service for more than the sum of the resource involved in creating or providing it. Profit is a GAIN, a GAIN is generally INCOME and INCOME IS TAXABLE. When a business expends $4 of resources to create a product and then sells that product for $5, the business cannot deduct from gross revenue the entire $5. The COST OF GOODS SOLD and various other expenses is $4. That is what the business is allowed to subtract from the selling price to arrive at income.

It is the same with employment and wages. The tasks that you perform at your job for a certain wage is not deductible to you. Providing the physical ability to perform the work cost you nothing. If your employer pays you $10 an hour to perform tasks at work, that $10 is a GAIN FOR YOU. It is INCOME and IT IS TAXABLE.

There is evidence that the ancient Egyptians knew this concept. Also, a key concept of modern accounting was written about 500 years ago in Italy.

And no, I am not afraid for my job. First, while I have an accounting degree, I do not work in the accounting field. Second, even if I had an accounting or law related job, people like you are not a threat. In reality, your inane arguments are sometimes mildly amusing or, if I am not in the mood for such silliness, you are merely an annoyance.

[Farmer Giles]

There is evidence that the ancient Egyptians knew this concept. Also, a key concept of modern accounting was written about 500 years ago in Italy.

it's artificial. its not a direct object. so show how this artifice attaches...you can't, or won't. mostly by random assumptions. "oh, but it says here on the form that you... but it's in the computer!" its the fetishisation of technology. all your terms and whatnot are useful in their context; but trying to find some javacode out on the beach is a logical error, and fails to state a controversy. it assumes that javacode is talking about things of natural description.