all of the codes assume we are talking about individuals already determined to owe such tax. thats not the point... we need them to show the law that shows where domestic citizens doing business "WITHIN" the USA, are liable for an income tax. thats all... just show us that part.. i found all the other parts. non resident aliens etc etc etc etc etc.... show me the domestic citizens liability. why is this so hard????? hmmmmmmm
I suggest all of you who think there is no Constitutional grounds for income tax...simply don't pay it. See what happens... ROTFLMAO... Maybe Ron Paul will bail you out of jail...
Poor Ron..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_statutory_arguments Although the specific statutes imposing an income tax may be generally unknown to persons other than tax lawyers, certified public accountants, enrolled agents and other tax specialists, such statutes exist. Internal Revenue Code sections 1 (26 U.S.C. § 1) (relating to individuals, estates and trusts) and 11 (26 U.S.C. § 11) (relating to corporations) are examples of statutes that expressly impose an income tax on "taxable income" (with section 1(a), for example, expressly using the phrase "[t]here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [ . . . ]" and section 11 stating: "A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation."). The term "taxable income" is in turn defined in section 63 (26 U.S.C. § 63) with reference to "gross income" which in turn is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 61.
Here lies your answer - the CODE, which was written by the IRS, which was enacted by CONGRESS, in the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES, in ARTICLE I SECTION 8 and inthe 16th AMENDMENT, and has been upheld in COURT, states that income , "from whatever source derived" is taxable. It's a boilerplate phrase that includes, by nonomission, domestically earned income. So you see, all income is taxable, from whatever source, unless specifically excluded. YOUR statement that Congress must specifically state what is taxable is FALSE. So the burden is on you to prove that domestically derived income is excluded. Provide a few cases to prove your point. You may disagree with it, but that's just the way it is.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_61 Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC 61, 26 U.S.C. § 61) defines "gross income," the starting point for determining which items of income are taxable for Federal income tax purposes in the United States. Section 61 states that "except as otherwise provided in this subtitle gross income means all income from whatever source derived". The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that Congress intended to express its full power to tax incomes to the extent that such taxation is permitted under the Constitution of the United States, where such power is set forth under Article I, Section 8 (the Taxing and Spending Clause) and under the Sixteenth Amendment. Section 61 contains a rare example of intensive redundancy, or emphatic redundancy, in the Internal Revenue Code. That is, the parenthetical phrase "but not limited to" redundantly intensifies the significance of the phrase "all income" and the phrase "from whatever source derived." Actually, Rat, I'm becoming concerned for your health. Don't you worry about adult onset diabetes, drinking all that sugary AJ Koolaid?
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED.... very good teryaki. "the inclusion of one implies the exclusion of all others." Gould v. Gould 245 U.S. 151 (1917) In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474, 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55, 24 S. Sup. Ct. 189.
under 861 we see Section 217 (a) was mysteriously changed in 1939... hmmmmmm interesting.. what did it say? 1925 section 217 (a)"In the case of a nonresident alien individual or of a citizen entitled to the benefits of section 262, the following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:" it becomes section 119 in 1939:] (a)"The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:" i wonder why they dropped the "non resident" part? there was no new legislation that allowed them to do so. seems a little fishy to me.
Section 29.119-1, the related regulation stayed the same in 1939: âSec. 29.119-1. Income from sources within the United States. Nonresident alien individuals, foreign corporations, and citizens of the United States or domestic corporations entitled to the benefits of section 251 [this applies only to those who receive a large percentage of their income from within federal possessions] are taxable only upon income from sources within the United States. Citizens of the United States and domestic corporations entitled to the benefits of section 251 are, however, taxable upon income received within the United States, whether derived from sources within or without the United States. (See sections 212(a), 231(c), and 251.)
Unless specifically excluded.... DOES NOT EQUAL the inclusion of one implies the exclusion of all others. Your train of logic is flawed. So what is Gould v Gould? It mentions taxes, but what does it have to do with the subject at hand? It appears as if 2 people of the same last name are arguing about who pays taxes - a divorce perhaps? Does it state in this decision that labor in nontaxable - as determined by a court case? If not, what's your point?
Can you explain why Congress must specify who and what is taxable? This seems to be the crux of the issue.
I'd say they changed the code to reflect the times, whatever that may have been. I'd say that someone was taking advantage of a tax loophole and the change was made to close it. If it's an illegal change, it would have been challenged in court and defeated. Has it?