Replies

Thanks for the link it had some interesting information I'd forgotten and one piece that helped me understand your thinking.

It seems that the fox is telling the hens why they are dinners for the fox. According to the fox, that is the end of the story. Nooooooooooooot exactly.

"undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly
realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." is from Commr v Glenshaw Glass Co. I quoted the footnotes earlier.

You know how religious cults use scripture out of context and content to make a new following. That case was based on the 1939 code not the 1954 code. This is clearly apparent when at footnotes 9 & 11 there is an explanation about income in the "constitutional sense". All that was done is the court tipped it's hat to it and did what it wanted to anyway. Nevertheless, it is still there. The truth is always there you just gotta look and use a little discernment.

The only definition for income is as a corporate profit as shown in my earlier posts. That's why income is not defined in the code. If the definition was inserted "corp prof" what do you think would happen?

I want the fox to prove it to me and ain't his dinner.

Frankly the biggest and largest cult following are those who file a traditional 1040. They have no idea as to why they do. Throw a couple of official looking code sections and an ambiguous court decision at them and wala you feel obligated to pay.

I will address benign section 6012 later. This is all the time I have for now.

Frankly the biggest and largest cult following are those who file a traditional 1040. They have no idea as to why they do. Throw a couple of official looking code sections and an ambiguous court decision at them and wala you feel obligated to pay.

You're never going to convince everyone, no matter how many so called ambiguous court decisions they see. For me it's fairly straighforward, rather than ambiguous.

The 16th Amendment was passed to permit taxing of "income"
Title 26 was passed by Congress with the full intent to tax "income", especially "income" from wages,
In America, both the economic and accounting definitions of "income" would include wages and salaries,
Courts have supported both the wages issue and the liability issue
Given all that, it's hard to understand how the cultists are those who believe in complying with the rule of law (whether they like that law or not).
Yes, there are inconsistencies in the code, and ambiguities that are continually challenged and reconciled. I simply can't put those two basic issues into that category.