Determination of the scope of "gross income"

David Merrill · Post by **David Merrill** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:22 am

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... cMoney.wmv

John J. Bulten · Post by **John J. Bulten** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:30 pm

jg wrote:Please cut to the chase: Why is your work for pay (since it increases your wealth, when realized and is under your dominion) not included in "gross income" of section 61?

I will respond on the thread "Once More Into the Breach", God willing.

Randall · Post by **Randall** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:45 pm

John J. Bulten wrote:
jg wrote:Please cut to the chase: Why is your work for pay (since it increases your wealth, when realized and is under your dominion) not included in "gross income" of section 61?
I will respond on the thread "Once More Into the Breach", God willing.

Which you failed to do. You did not answer the question. You had some rambling nonsense about not wanting to type an answer. It would have been quicker to type the answer, but then you would have to have an answer.

Brian Rookard · Post by **Brian Rookard** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:16 pm

CaptainKickback wrote:As a professional hockey player, I am sure Satan has shopped for ice skates....

http://lsihockey.no/images/nyheter/Miro ... 28960a.jpg

Nice one.

David Merrill · Post by **David Merrill** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:12 am

John J. Bulten wrote:
jg wrote:Please cut to the chase: Why is your work for pay (since it increases your wealth, when realized and is under your dominion) not included in "gross income" of section 61?
I will respond on the thread "Once More Into the Breach", God willing.

I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Cpt Banjo · Post by **Cpt Banjo** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:49 am

David Merrill wrote:I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."

Hubert H. Humphrey

Post by **LPC** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:18 am

David Merrill wrote:I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.

Does he also have a "right" to be considered to be correct, even when he is wrong?

John J. Bulten · Post by **John J. Bulten** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:40 pm

David Merrill wrote:I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.

You go David!

Of course (mock humility), you're not espousing the doctrine that Bulten gets to characterize the transaction, but the doctrine that a party to the transaction gets to characterize it.

Did you notice how Dan arrogates to himself the right to judge others wrong? And that after I taught him how to spell "Francois Rene de Chateaubriand", you know, the guy who said "One is not superior."

Post by **Quixote** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:15 pm

John J. Bulten wrote:
David Merrill wrote:I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.
You go David!

Of course (mock humility), you're not espousing the doctrine that Bulten gets to characterize the transaction, but the doctrine that a party to the transaction gets to characterize it.

Did you notice how Dan arrogates to himself the right to judge others wrong? And that after I taught him how to spell "Francois Rene de Chateaubriand", you know, the guy who said "One is not superior."

No, John. He is espousing the doctrine that you have a right to be heard. He's wrong, of course. You have a right to speak, but no one is required to listen. Of course, if you started defending your bizarre positions with something other than insults and sophistry, people would probably listen.

Brian Rookard · Post by **Brian Rookard** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:02 pm

John J. Bulten wrote:
David Merrill wrote:I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.
You go David!

Of course (mock humility), you're not espousing the doctrine that Bulten gets to characterize the transaction, but the doctrine that a party to the transaction gets to characterize it.

So the guy John loaned the money to, since he was a party to the transaction, can turn around and say "it wasn't a loan, it was a 'gift', and so I don't owe John the money" ... and we'll just accept his characterization since he was a party to that transaction ... all the while, John sits and protests that it was a 'loan' and that he's entitled to be repaid.

And of course, all one needs to do is watch Judge Judy in the afternoon to see that this is a very real-life situation.

And of course, there can be the situation where both parties are in the fraud and are trying to cheat society ... both parties *claim* that the transaction was such-and-such ... while the facts show otherwise (despite the "characterization" of the parties.) I guess two robbers can agree that the bank heist was not *really* a robbery ... they were taking out a "loan" from the bank ... and society of course must accept the perp's word for it.

John, get real.

John J. Bulten · Post by **John J. Bulten** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:49 pm

If two parties to a transaction argue whether it was a gift or a loan, they can go to court.

If two alleged robbers and a bank argue over whether it was a loan or a robbery, the same.

If I and my payor argue over whether it was wages or pay, the same.

If I and my payor agree that it wasn't wages but the IRS can find other firsthand evidence that it was, the same.

Someday, Brian, you will stop ridiculing people as if they're not being real when they are.

Post by **Joey Smith** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:38 pm

If I and my payor agree that it wasn't wages but the IRS can find other firsthand evidence that it was, the same.

No, because it violates a criminal statute. If you don't like it, please write your Congressperson. In the meantime, it is a felony by the both of you.

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:47 pm

John J. Bulten wrote:If two parties to a transaction argue whether it was a gift or a loan, they can go to court.

If two alleged robbers and a bank argue over whether it was a loan or a robbery, the same.

If I and my payor argue over whether it was wages or pay, the same.

If I and my payor agree that it wasn't wages but the IRS can find other firsthand evidence that it was, the same.

Someday, Brian, you will stop ridiculing people as if they're not being real when they are.

The payor has a choice: wages or non-wage compensation.

Depending on the situation, the IRS may challenge the payor's determination because of the impact on SS payments, withholding, and other issues.

Irrespective of those issues, the monies paid from the payor to the payee, YOU, are considered income for taxation purposes.

If you disagree with this, please demonstrate how compensation paid to you for personal services are not income..

John J. Bulten · Post by **John J. Bulten** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:59 am

Thanks, Joey, let me make a slight correction to my hasty comment:

If I and my payor agree that it wasn't wages but the IRS thinks it can find other firsthand evidence that it was, the same [they or I can go to court].

Nikki, see the thread I started previously on your topic.

Anti-861 · Post by **Anti-861** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:17 am

No, nitwit. A notice of deficiency has the presumption of correctness and the burden generally rests with the taxpayer to prove that it's not.

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:10 pm

John:

What notices have you received from the IRS so far, and how have you responded to them?

. · Post by . » Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:23 pm

None.

They weren't properly addressed to John-J: Bulten.

Post by **LPC** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:29 pm

John J. Bulten wrote:If I and my payor argue over whether it was wages or pay, the same.

There is a court with jurisdiction over meaningless semantics?

John J. Bulten · Post by **John J. Bulten** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:08 am

My examples were not about NOD, because CtC filers who file properly and timely, and respond to IRS tactics properly and timely, seldom see NODs. But in that case the equation would be: If I and my payor argue over whether it was wages or pay, and the IRS agrees with the payor, we can go to court.

However, I was a nonfiler from 8/15/00 to 2/2/05, and am happy to admit my mistake (and even join with you in encouraging nonfilers to file, as Pete does). So I've seen most of the notices and in the past 2 years have learned to respond more effectively. My latest notice from the IRS admits I had zero income for 2006, but tries to pretend I had zero withholding too.

My full history used to be available at LH and I hope to repost it with updates. But the short version is, for your edification:

-98: normal mistaken filings
99-02: all filed 2/2/05, disallowed only recently; writing appeal
03-04: no info returns, filed in 05, no income, no dispute
05: info returns again, timely CtC filing and full refund credit
06: info returns, IRS stalls as above; writing rebuttal

Anything more specific you want? Do you want it so you can use it in your own case, or so you can call Ogden and slam me?

Lambkin · Post by **Lambkin** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:36 am

So do you actually think your efforts will result in eliminating your tax liability, or do you hope for martyrdom? Tactically, your best bet is probably the latter. I know it must be galling to have wasted so much effort, but what you are doing is like throwing good money after bad.

I think (hope?) most would agree that when there is no happy ending, it's best to get to the ending ASAP. Thankfully the IRS is remarkably impersonal when it comes to changing your mind; they'll forget all the bollocks you've sent them if you just go straighten it out. Since I'm an optimist I'll assume you know what I'm talking about.