Friday, February 09, 2007

flawed Wesley Snipes 2-part film ciruculating

-----Original Message-----
From: Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com
[mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: flawed Wesley Snipes 2-part film ciruculating

This is a one-way announcement list. Please do not reply to this
Email.

When you wish to send a comment, the contact source (e-mail or link)
is provided whenever possible for your convenience.

Paycheck Piracy acts as a portal of independent views and does not
exercise any form of control over the content contained in messages
provided by others. The content contained and made available
originates from outside sources believed to be credible; however
Paycheck Piracy makes no warranties or guarantees as to outside
accuracy.


************************************************
Prepare. Persist. Prevail. http://www.preferredservices.org

Subscribe to the free e-letter Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com

Lawful information is not legal advice. Use all lawful and legal
means to peacefully restore the American's unalienable natural
law rights against de facto government and its public policy.
Threats and coercion are not advocated or supported against anyone.
************************************************


http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm


The "861 argument" folks are at it again, circulating a
well-produced two-part film purporting to demonstrate that only
non-Americans or those doing business in foreign countries or
federal territories and possessions can be liable for "income"
taxes. The film focuses on the recent indictment of Wesley Snipes,
and the fact that, in part, the indictment accuses Snipes of
"failing to file a return stating his income and claiming any
deductions and credits to which he is entitled". Seizing on the
language "deductions and credits", the actors in the film conduct a
search of 26 USC for those words as a phrase, which (it is asserted)
will only be found in portions of the code related to non-resident
aliens, foreign corporations and territories or possessions. They
suggest (without troubling themselves with the fact that claiming
deductions and credits is obviously optional) that it therefore must
be concluded that only persons to whom these portions relate can be
"required to file a return".



Unfortunately, this is merely an exercise in fallacious reasoning,
in which the film-maker's proposition is illegitimately presented as
being decisive of the issue they claim to address, and is also
carefully framed in a fashion that leads to the conclusion desired.
Without bothering to run my own search to the same effect, I'll
grant for purposes of this discussion that these may be the only
locations where the entire phrase "deductions and credits" may be
found. However, they are certainly NOT the only places that
"deductions" and/or "credits" available to filers are found in the
code or the law. A search for either will turn up MANY references
to these terms. Those found here
-.html> and here
-.html> :

26 USC 151. Allowance of deductions for personal exemptions

(a) Allowance of deductions

In the case of an individual, the exemptions provided by this
section shall be allowed as deductions in computing taxable income.

and,

26 USC 31. Tax withheld on wages

(a) Wage withholding for income tax purposes

(1) In general The amount withheld as tax under chapter 24 shall be
allowed to the recipient of the income as a credit against the tax
imposed by this subtitle.

...are sufficient by themselves to make clear that the film's
premise is completely unfounded.



That this presentation, and the thinking behind it, is invalid
doesn't mean that Mr. Snipes has actually done anything wrong, in
the sense of having had ill-intent, or in the sense of having evaded
a tax liability which he actually owed, of course. I hope that
someone who knows him gets a copy of CtC
into his hands,
so that he can learn what is actually going on in his case.



I also hope that the very talented producers of these films learn
the truth as well. Putting erroneous material like this into
circulation is very harmful. The flaws in presentations like this
will be very quickly apparent to any "newbie" that gives them brief
consideration and even the most superficial research, such as is
demonstrated here. This is likely to result in that "newbie"
turning his or her back on the whole concept of "tax honesty" and
never looking further to find the real truth-- another possible
warrior for the truth transformed into a disparaging and cynical
voice helping to dissuade the next American from even taking a first
look at the subject.



On the other hand, these very talented producers could be doing a
lot of good, if they were devoting their time to learning, and
helping spread the word, about the reality of the "income" tax...



(More on the "861 argument" fallacy can be found at
www.losthorizons.com/tax/misunderstandings/map.htm.)



________________________________



Anyone circulating any of this stuff is advised to immediately cease
and desist, and anyone receiving it should reply to the sender to
that effect, in the strongest possible terms. In recognition of the
sender's failure to do even minimal research to verify what he or
she is circulating, and the possibility that the circulation of
erroneous information and ideas is deliberate, anything presented by
that sender in the future should be taken with at least a grain of
salt, if not a little suspicion, in the future.



NOTE: Needless to say, I cannot address EVERY bit of the vast amount
of nonsense constantly making its way around the "tax honesty"
community. The simple rule of thumb to follow is this-- if you
didn't read it in CtC
, or on
losthorizons.com (the Forum
-- which is itself a
home to much baloney-- excluded), it is either unreliable or simply
not true; and in any case is irrelevant to the "income" tax subject.
The material posted here
ion.htm> and here
s.htm> is worth reading in this regard.



Also, please don't waste pixels writing to argue with me about items
posted here, or to defend them. The reason items are listed here is
that they are wrong, and serve to distract from the reality of the
law, and our critically important responsibility for its
enforcement. I have already looked into each of the listed items
and don't intend to let myself be distracted any further-- you
shouldn't either. Those looking for more detailed discussions of
myths, misunderstandings and errors about the law will find many
posted here
.

=============================================
No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or their
equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's
job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction
issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's
pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing,
voluntary, written consent.
http://www.preferredservices.org/NonconsentualTaking.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a one-way announcement list. Only the list moderators are able to post a
message.
To subscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com
To unsubscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-off@mail-list.com
Update your email address, send a message to
Paycheck-Piracy-change@mail-list.com with your old address in the Subject: area

Archived files: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy

3 Comments:

Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

You want to conduct a THOROUGH search of the tax code? Try following this step-by-step exploration of all the possibilities and you will consistently come up with 861 as the answer, and the ONLY answer.

Data Mining the Tax Code - Computer-based Tax Research
http://whatistaxed.com/who_is_taxed.htm

4:03 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com WRITES:
"Subject: flawed Wesley Snipes 2-part film circulating

Unfortunately, this is merely an exercise in fallacious reasoning,
in which the film-maker's proposition is illegitimately presented as being decisive of the issue they claim to address, and is also carefully framed in a fashion that leads to the conclusion desired.

Without bothering to run my own search to the same effect, I'll
grant for purposes of this discussion that these may be the only locations where the entire phrase "deductions and credits" may be found. However, they are certainly NOT the only places that
"deductions" and/or "credits" available to filers are found in the code or the law. A search for either will turn up MANY references
to these terms.

26 USC 151. Allowance of deductions for personal exemptions

(a) Allowance of deductions

In the case of an individual, the exemptions provided by this
section shall be allowed as deductions in computing taxable income.

and,

26 USC 31. Tax withheld on wages

(a) Wage withholding for income tax purposes

(1) In general The amount withheld as tax under chapter 24 shall be
allowed to the recipient of the income as a credit against the tax
imposed by this subtitle.

...are sufficient by themselves to make clear that the film's
premise is completely unfounded."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FredMarshall1937 WRITES:

What a CROCK!

The above applies ONLY AFTER (1) the applicable definition of "Individual" has been determined, (2) "Gross Income" and "Taxable Income" have been determined, (3) "for income tax purposes" has been defined, (4) the definition of "taxpayer" (as distinguished from "tax payer") has been determined, and (5) the context in which provisions are offered has been determined.

Paycheck Piracy List Owner deliberately omits pertinent parts, such as are seen below. Why would anyone be looking under "Refundable Credits" before first determining the qualifiers listed above?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER B - COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
PART V - DEDUCTIONS FOR PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS

Section 151. Allowance of deductions for personal exemptions
(a) Allowance of deductions
In the case of an individual, the exemptions provided by this
section shall be allowed as deductions in computing taxable income
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER A - DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY
PART IV - CREDITS AGAINST TAX
SUBPART C - REFUNDABLE CREDITS

(a) Wage withholding for income tax purposes
(1) In general
The amount withheld as tax under chapter 24 shall be allowed to
the recipient of the income as a credit against the tax imposed
by this subtitle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A search of the United States Code for "definition of 'individual' " produced only the following four "hits" from Title 26, in the first 75 hits from the entire U.S. Code. As you can see, none has to do with individuals specifically subject to the Income Tax.

Section 2651. Generation assignment
Section 25B. Elective deferrals and IRA contributions by certain individuals
Section 9711. Continued obligations of individual employer plans
Section 406. Employees of foreign affiliates covered by section 3121(l) agreements

A search of the United States Code for "definition of 'individual' for purposes of the Income Tax" produces the following from Title 26:

Section 932. Coordination of United States and Virgin Islands income taxes
Section 6425. Adjustment of overpayment of estimated income tax by corporation
Section 6513. Time return deemed filed and tax considered paid
Section 545. Undistributed personal holding company income
Section 6201. Assessment authority (has to do only with taxes paid by STAMP, such as
stamps on alcohol and tobacco products)
Section 1421i. Income tax (Title 48) - This simply adds Guam to the U.S. Possessions list
Section 7407. Action to enjoin income tax return preparers from illegal activities
Section 894. Income affected by treaty (foreign income)
Section 6694. Understatement of taxpayer's liability by income tax return preparer
Section 6212. Notice of deficiency (gift, estate, and excise taxes)
Section 6096. Designation by individuals (presidential election campaign fund)
Section 556. Undistributed foreign personal holding company income

Above are the first dozen hits, none of which define "individual" for purposes of the income tax. There are quite a few more, but not one defines "individual" in any way that includes American citizens living and earning domestic income within the 50 states.

It isn't that the Congress doesn't know how to impose a tax or define terms. Look at Title 27 and you'll see that the imposition of taxes on alcohol, tobacco and firearms are all clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. Why isn't that the case with Title 26?

And why do defenders of the income tax fraud always have to string together obscure and unrelated provisions in deceptive ways in order to fool shallow surface readers into believing the "U.S. Individual Income Tax" applies to everyone?

It's a FRAUD, plain and simple, the way it is administered. The TRUTH is easily found IN THE LAW now that we have search engines to pin down the FACTS.
Anyone want to conduct a THOROUGH search of the tax code? Try following this step-by-step exploration of all the possibilities and you will consistently come up with 861 as the answer, and the ONLY answer.

Data Mining the Tax Code - Computer-based Tax Research
http://whatistaxed.com/who_is_taxed.htm

5:41 AM  
Blogger Tyler said...

Question, sorry. But, this film was posted on this blog, correct?

Now is this saying that we shouldn't repost the two part film series, or is this just showing another person's opinion, or that of a Fed Plant?

10:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home