You Are Stupid. And I will Prove it.

[Farmer Giles]

You Are Stupid. And I will Prove it.

Your grammar skills in your title provides evidence of a certain level of stupidity.

I like the title. You ARE Stupid, and I WILL Prove it.

[Farmer Giles]

Famspear - remember the adage of expending effort at teaching a pig to sing.

It would be better if a thing once trampled into the dust of nonsense couldn't be reassembled or regurgitated by narcissistic opportunists. As the 'net proliferates we can only expect to see the ignorant stumble along on the same nonsensical paths.

talk about a word salad!

[Nikki]

Auto-WOOOOOOOSH

[Farmer Giles]

In the interest of expediency, I've taken the liberty of replying for Farmer Giles. I've taken the above paragraph written by Famspear, translated it into Japanese, and then translated that back into English. The response is as follows:

Is this your trouble, then? You translate everything from English to Japanese, and back again? This is like the 2nd or 3rd time Ive seen you post this. what are you smoking?!!? Dude, I never heard ANYBODY do that before, thats some crazy stuff you must be on!

[Farmer Giles]

Auto-WOOOOOOOSH

please keep the toilet noises off the thread. shut the door at least!

[Farmer Giles]

in this post, I have attempted to be as polite and informative as possible. I have posted questions for you before -- e.g., where does the admiralty stuff come from -- and you haven't answered. I posted, in response to your arguments about driver's licenses, a Texas Appeals Court case directly in point. Your reply was: "the three points he argued were inane and offbase. its the typical fake court case that is used to muddy the waters. stick to the statutes." Your reponse, dismissive as it was, ignore JRB, who had posted concerning the statues. This time, rather, than dismiss or ignore, please attempt to respond rather than seeking a reason to avoid discussion of your own posting.

I just wanted to address this part first, and I WILL respond to the rest of your post. Now, we had started to talk about Admiralty, and I hope we will again. I don't have a lot of information there, and the discussion was more on the issues like the ones this thread is raising. If I miss something, state it again and insist on an answer! I hold myself to the same rules as anyone else. Now, as to the Texas Appeals Court post, it was NOT on point and as you have noted I made that perfectly clear. "the three points he argued were inane and offbase." and they were- something to do with the state power to regulate drivers, and whatever other craptacular populist arguments some dude got off the internet. I think I've made a good case for my position and I hope there will be another thread started on that subject.

At all times YES I DO invite challenge or discussion on anything I post. I am bound by the same rules as anyone else.

[silversopp]

Is this your trouble, then? You translate everything from English to Japanese, and back again?

I'm trying to reverse engineer your gibberish. English to Japanese and back comes pretty close to the word salad you generate. However, the end result of my work makes much more sense than your arguments. Given that you seem to understand David Van Pelt, and he's literally pyschotic, I may need to refine that process a bit.

It's not an easy task, but once completed, I think you may have an easier time communicating with the rest of the human population.

[The Operative]

Famspear - remember the adage of expending effort at teaching a pig to sing.

It would be better if a thing once trampled into the dust of nonsense couldn't be reassembled or regurgitated by narcissistic opportunists. As the 'net proliferates we can only expect to see the ignorant stumble along on the same nonsensical paths.

talk about a word salad!

Nope, only you and David are guilty of spouting word salad here. Judge Roy Bean's statement is perfectly understandable and correct. This also proves that you do not know what is word salad and what is not.

[Randall]

this is not gross income, because everyone already had what he received.

Please explain this in a little more detail: How does one receive that which he already had?
If I already have, I have it, there is no way to receive it again. I could, one supposes, receive it again if I gave it away - but what sequence of events would have occurred?

[Nikki]

DFTT

[silversopp]

Please explain this in a little more detail: How does one receive that which he already had?
If I already have, I have it, there is no way to receive it again. I could, one supposes, receive it again if I gave it away - but what sequence of events would have occurred?

Let's try a concrete example Farmer.

This week, my employer is going to be depositing a bunch of money into my checking account. This happens every two weeks for me. Is this money gross income? Why or why not?

[Farmer Giles]

I thought I might take one of your paragraphs, admittedly at random, and discuss the same with you... let's look at the statement I selected at random... but I do not understand the context of the quote in relation to your statments; I could not find the source of the quote, either.

one of my favorite words is "random". "Every random thing"... it's a little younger than I am, wasnt used much when I was kid, not that way. But it's very clever and I like it The whole problem I personally have with the "fakeocracy" is that it's totally random. Everything starts from an assumption, what you think you know but dont actually. And its often fairly easy to show it, the 'randomness' of so much of what goes on out there. But much of what we are taught from a young age is to be totally random. Every generation has its randomness.

it can't be any other way and the Code acknowledges this here. Imagine if someone was forced to prove all this in Court, the system would have collapsed years ago.

I pointed out that the Code recognizes gift and inheritance as a way to acquire property without cost-basis, because it doesn't cost anything to get wealth this way. According to Famspear, that would make this acquision of property into gross income by sec 61 of the IRC if it wasnt for another section that exempts this.

Apparently wealth can be acquired without cost! It can be handed on to me... is there any other way to share the wealth besides a gift or inheritance? I'd say by equity share redemption.

I believe the Code must be structured this way, given the funny way 'income' is being defined, that actually takes literally any transaction and calls it 'accession' when what it really means to say is "net access". Glenshaw defines 'net access' is gross ncome

If gifts and inheritances were taxed as income it would violate the basic definition, that the "original equity contribution" must be discounted to reach the "fully realized" of Glenshaw. The transaction has to be mathematically complete, that is justice. A "full realized access" must occur, and I dont think Glenshaw violates the International Accounting Standard.

So "accession" is certainly different from "succession". This is Income. All internal revenue taxes are indirect. They are basically excises on a singular power of property, namely the accumulation of 3rd party derived benefits. After all, if I'm deriving something, its got to come from somewhere. From what source is this 'singular power over employment' deriving any income? It can only be social security. Where is the "fully realized accession to wealth that converts one's productivity into 100% gross income?

The term "derived" shows a limitation. Its not, "income from any source.". It's, "from any source derived". Does that mean if I accrue income it isnt taxable? No, it means its not generally possible to "accrue" income. Its not in the nature of income to just stick by accident like a burr or something; you've basically got sign up somewhere. For the Voyage, which brings us back to Admiralty.

I'll post more responses later.

[Farmer Giles]

DFTT

thats just disgusting.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'll post more responses later.

Do us all a favor, and please don't. You have yet to say anything worthwhile, and you have yet to give a coherent, direct, accurate response to any question put to you. As in the case of another anti-Quatlooser, I'm not going to comment further on anything you say, or anything which anyone says to or about you, unless and until the quality of your posts improves to the level I mention in my first sentence. I invite others to do the same.

[silversopp]

The term "derived" shows a limitation. Its not, "income from any source.". It's, "from any source derived". Does that mean if I accrue income it isnt taxable? No, it means its not generally possible to "accrue" income. Its not in the nature of income to just stick by accident like a burr or something; you've basically got sign up somewhere. For the Voyage, which brings us back to Admiralty.

Of the word "derived" limitation is shown. It is not that "source." It is empty earnings. It's "Derived" of source" which the source is emply. It's not taxable earnings, if it occurs, that as for average. Calling to obtain, as for that it means "generally possibly to accrue" Earnings. Exactly with respect to essence of earnings that accidentally notches or like what in the stick which is not; you're somewhere where you participate to obtain those earnings, basically. For travelling which resets us to the naval headquarters.

[Farmer Giles]

this is not gross income, because everyone already had what he received.

Please explain this in a little more detail: How does one receive that which he already had?
If I already have, I have it, there is no way to receive it again. I could, one supposes, receive it again if I gave it away - but what sequence of events would have occurred?

whats in question here is our net worth. Only an increase in this net worth creates any income. So we need to know what was our net worth before the transaction, to see if there has been an increase. I already have my net worth whatever it is and that must be deducted from the amount received in an accession to wealth, to get "gross income". The Intl Acct definition is for "income", as opposed to all other powers over property. We are defining "what is income", in general, to show the proper subect of this tax.

An accession to wealth that leave a net zero change in the estate is called a "succession". It was peaceful.

You ask a good question, and answer it just as well. You first give it away only to receive it back. The form is different, may be more desireable or whatever, but your net worth is the same. When I create equity in a project, that is excluded from income. I havent accessed any wealth at all, i havent received anything yet. But I am part owner. When those shares are redeemed and the partnership is dissolved, I'm still owner of what I already had. Swapping one thing for another of equal value is an even-exchange. Just like with inheritance and gifts, there are many ways to acquire property that do not create any income. I have already given the well-known model of mortgage financing on real estate as an example.

[Farmer Giles]

so instead of redeeming shares, if you like we can bond them and take credit instead. Eventally the transaction will forfeit.

[Farmer Giles]

I'll post more responses later.

Do us all a favor, and please don't. You have yet to say anything worthwhile, and you have yet to give a coherent, direct, accurate response to any question put to you. As in the case of another anti-Quatlooser, I'm not going to comment further on anything you say, or anything which anyone says to or about you, unless and until the quality of your posts improves to the level I mention in my first sentence. I invite others to do the same.

i think its best if you just go away.

[Farmer Giles]

This week, my employer is going to be depositing a bunch of money into my checking account. This happens every two weeks for me. Is this money gross income? Why or why not?

I don't have enough information to form a responsive answer, which would be reason for fling that " wtf?" form with the IRS, #4xxx something or other, the one to correct bad W2's and 1099's. I have no idea why it is or is not gross income.

But if I'd signed a W4 or a W9 allowing this relationship I guess it has to be gross income, because its been run through the system. maybe there's some argument to be made for non-disclosure or unfair consideration.

What indeed is this singular power over employment that is the subject of the excise? What is "income from employment"? How does a transaction occur where one party literally has NO ORIGINAL EQUITY CONTRIBUTION recognized, yet has clearly contributed equity? Somebody f-ked up.

Maybe there really is something in the nature of "rendering service" that leaves it open to taxation, but I dont believe that. The Code reads "income from salaries wages and compensation", so is there a part of these items that is NOT income? Could there be?

[Famspear]

...........I pointed out that the Code recognizes gift and inheritance as a way to acquire property without cost-basis, because it doesn't cost anything to get wealth this way. According to Famspear, that would make this acquision [sic] of property into gross income by sec 61 of the IRC if it wasnt for another section that exempts this.

That's correct. If section 102 were not the law, then that Christmas gift you received from Aunt Mary would be taxable to you under section 61. If you cannot grasp this concept, then you are lost.

Apparently wealth can be acquired without cost! It can be handed on to me...

Wow, what a news flash! That's correct. So what?

.......is there any other way to share the wealth besides a gift or inheritance? I'd say by equity share redemption.

What in the world are you talking about? "Share the wealth"? What are you talking about? What exactly do you mean by "equity share redemption"? And what exactly is your point? What does an "equity share redemption" or "sharing the wealth" have to do with our discussion? Perhaps if you explain what you believe these terms mean (or at least tell us what these terms mean to you), we can steer you out of the weeds.

I believe the Code must be structured this way

Structured WHAT way? You aren't making sense.

.......given the funny way 'income' is being defined, that actually takes literally any transaction and calls it 'accession' when what it really means to say is "net access". Glenshaw defines 'net access' is gross ncome [sic]

OK, we're back into word salad now. WHAT is it that "actually takes literally any transaction" etc.? What does the word "it" refer to when you say it "really means to say is 'net access'"? This is gibberish.

When you say "Glenshaw defines 'net access' is gross ncome" I assume you mean that the Court in Glenshaw defines "net access" AS gross income. But you're still not making any sense.

If gifts and inheritances were taxed as income it would violate the basic definition, that the "original equity contribution" must be discounted to reach the "fully realized" of Glenshaw. The transaction has to be mathematically complete, that is justice. A "full realized access" must occur, and I dont think Glenshaw violates the International Accounting Standard.

OK, you're off in the weeds, now Giles. More word salad. There is no "basic definition" to be violated here. The definition of income in the "International Accounting Standard" is a financial accounting definition, not a tax accounting definition. That means that the definition is use in preparing financial statements, not in preparing tax returns. And the phrase "original equity contribution" has little or nothing to do our discussion.

If you work for someone else, if you provide labor and you get paid for that, there is NO "ORIGINAL EQUITY CONTRIBUTION", Giles. The term "equity contribution" refers to an investment BY YOU in ANOTHER ENTITY, such as ExxonMobil. We're talking about an investment in a SEPARATE ENTITY -- an entity other than yourself. You still don't understand the accounting terminology of the materials you are reading. Forget about the definition of income in the International Accounting Standard and focus your mind.

Whether Glenshaw "violates the International Accounting Standard" is not really material to the discussion, Giles. We are supposed to be talking about tax law here, Giles -- tax accounting, if you will, not financial accounting. Now, financial accounting concepts are relevant in discussing tax law, but they're not necessarily determinative or conclusive.

So "accession" is certainly different from "succession". This is Income. All internal revenue taxes are indirect. They are basically excises on a singular power of property, namely the accumulation of 3rd party derived benefits.

I'm sorry but that's more gibberish.

After all, if I'm deriving something, its got to come from somewhere. From what source is this 'singular power over employment' deriving any income? It can only be social security. Where is the "fully realized accession to wealth that converts one's productivity into 100% gross income?

OK, you're still lost in the weeds. That is more gibberish, Giles.

The term "derived" shows a limitation. Its not, "income from any source.". It's, "from any source derived". Does that mean if I accrue income it isnt taxable? No, it means its not generally possible to "accrue" income. Its not in the nature of income to just stick by accident like a burr or something; you've basically got sign up somewhere. For the Voyage, which brings us back to Admiralty.

That's more gibberish, Giles.

Let's try again. Hypothetical: I work as a laborer for someone. That someone pays me for that labor, for the service I perform. He pays me in Federal Reserve notes, for example. Under section 61, the gross amount of that compensation is taxable to me. It doesn't matter what the definition of "income" is under the International Accounting Standard. There is no "original equity contribution" in this example, and there is no relevancy of an "original equity contribution" to this set of facts.