Unless the IRS has sent you a bill for taxes owed.., how do you know how
much to pay them? Oh, let's see now.
You voluntarily filled out one of their forms, telling them how much you
think you might owe, and mailed it to them to figure out if you were
correct.., is that what happened.??!
I'd suggest you ask the IRS nicely to first define their meaning of
"income" using their own Code book. Then don't pay anything until you
receive their answer. It's worked for me for the past 22 years, and I'm
still waiting for their answer.., and I'm not protesting anything..!! :o)

I'd suggest that the original poster avoid this tax protestor
garbage. If he follows it, it will cost him a ton of money and
possibly land him in jail. It's complete crap. I recommend
checking out Dan Evans' Tax Protestor FAQ at
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html for the real scoop on the
kooks who assert this stuff.

To quote from Dan's section on the "income isn't defined" scam:

Technically correct, but irrelevant. Section 61 of the Internal
Revenue Code defines "gross income," from which taxable income is
calculated, as "all income from whatever source derived" and
gives a number of examples of the types of income included in
"gross income" in section 61, including compensation for services
(i.e., wages, salaries, and other forms of earned income).

It is actually fairly common for statutes to omit fundamental
definitions of legal concepts, and for taxing statutes to omit
fundamental definitions of what is being taxed. For example,
property taxes rarely define what is meant by "property." The
Internal Revenue Code includes a gift tax and an estate tax as
well as an income tax, and both taxes are imposed on the value of
property, and yet there is no statutory definition of "gift,"
"value," or "property."

The United States Supreme Court has not hesitated to interpret
the word "income," and has stated that Congress intended to
impose the income tax on "undeniable accessions to wealth,
clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete
dominion," with no restriction as to "source." Commissioner v.
Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).

Courts have therefore not been impressed with arguments about the
need for a statutory definition of "income."

"Upon review of May's amended petition, we find no allegations
of fact which could give rise to a valid claim; rather, the
complaint merely contains conclusory assertions attacking the
constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code and its
application to the taxpayer.[Footnote omitted.] Tax protest cases
like this one raise no genuine controversy; the underlying legal
issues have long been settled. See, e.g., Abrams, 82 T.C. at
406-07 (citing cases rejecting similar arguments). Because May's
petition raised no justiciable claims, the Tax Court properly
dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim." May v.
C.I.R., 752 F.2d 1301, 1302 (8th Cir. 1985), (among other things,
May's amended complaint alleged that "The Respondent has totally
erred in its determination of 'income' when no definition of
'income' appears in the Internal Revenue Code. No basis exists
for this improper determination of 'income' by the Respondent."
752 F.2d at 1304, note 3).
"Plaintiff argues he is entitled to relief because the Code
does not define income. The United States, however, is correct
that "income" is afforded its every day usage as any gain derived
from capital, labor, or both combined. See United States v.
Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (6th Cir. 1983). In addition, the
Code explicitly defines "gross income", from which taxable income
is computed, as including compensation for services, i.e.,
wages." Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC
1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return
penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous
refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas.
(CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir.
1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
"In April of 1995, Dr. Ahee filed two form 1040 federal
individual income tax returns for the years 1990 and 1991. Each
of these returns were filed with all entries completed '0,'
except the 1990 return demanded the $6,440 refund (presumably for
taxes paid in 1989). Attached to these returns was a two paged
typed addendum in which Dr. Ahee stated that he was not required
to pay taxes. Dr. Ahee claimed that he decided to file these
'zero' returns after attending a tax seminar in early April 1995.
[...] "Appellant avers that since the Code does not define
income, he did not know that monies he received were income, so
he violated the Code, if at all, in good faith. While it is true
that the 'general term income is not defined in the Internal
Revenue Code,' all of the monies received by Dr. Ahee clearly
meet the definitions found in IRC section 61. [United State v.]
Ballard, [535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1976)] 535 F.2d, at 404. The
money he received as compensation for patient services falls
squarely within IRC section 61(a)(1): 'Compensation for services,
including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar
items.'" United States v. Ahee, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 2706, 87
AFTR2d Par. 2001-523, No. 99-1991 (6th Cir. 2/15/2001), (criminal
conviction for willfully filing false returns affirmed).

--
Brett

************************************************** ***************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* lawyer@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
************************************************** ***************

The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only.
It isn't meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as
such. If you want legal advice, speak with a local lawyer
familiar with your state's laws who can review *all* of the facts
and the law applicable to your situation.
************************************************** ***************


"MWH" <res0n8e5@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:xI8Za.2370$dm.1800@nwrddc02.gnilink.net... Unless the IRS has sent you a bill for taxes owed.., how do
you know how much to pay them? Oh, let's see now. You voluntarily filled out one of their forms, telling them
how much you think you might owe, and mailed it to them to figure out if you
were correct.., is that what happened.??! I'd suggest you ask the IRS nicely to first define their
meaning of "income" using their own Code book. Then don't pay anything
until you receive their answer. It's worked for me for the past 22
years, and I'm still waiting for their answer.., and I'm not protesting
anything..!! :o)

YES! And I'd suggest reading even further:
Dear Federal Government,

PLEASE PROSECUTE ME.

I, Larken Rose, have not filed a federal income tax return for 1997 or any
subsequent year. This is not because I am protesting any law, or because I
do not want to pay my “fair share”; it is because I refuse to be a victim of
the biggest financial fraud in history. I also refuse to remain silent
while government lawyers illegally defraud my fellow Americans.

People by the thousands are learning that the “conventional wisdom” about
the federal income tax is just plain wrong. As more and more Americans are
discovering that the law itself shows that the income of most Americans is
not taxable, DOJ and IRS officials are desperately trying to distract from
the issue by dishonestly portraying it as a frivolous “tax protestor”
argument, and by trying to silence (via court injunctions) those who
publicize the issue. This summary shows why the IRS and the DOJ refuse to
have an open, honest discussion about what the government’s own regulations
say:

Point 1: The federal income tax applies only to one’s “taxable income,” not
to all income, and the income tax regulations (e.g. 26 CFR §§ 1.861-1(a)(1),
1.861-8(a)(1), 1.863-1(c)) clearly show that one’s taxable domestic income
is to be determined under the rules of 26 USC § 861(b) and the related
regulations beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8. (Other sections explain when
income from outside of the U.S. is taxable.)

Point 2: So why does it matter whether we use those sections to determine
our taxable domestic income? Because more than 80 years of statutory and
regulatory history prove beyond any doubt that 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR §
1.861-8 show income to be taxable only when it comes from certain types of
international or foreign commerce. In other words, contrary to what
“everyone knows,” most Americans do not receive taxable income, and do not
owe federal income taxes.

IRS employees across the country refuse to honestly address the issue, and
instead resort to threats, evasions, and accusations, because their own law
books expose the biggest financial fraud in history: the misrepresentation
and misapplication of the federal income tax. (See www.taxableincome.net
for more information.) The nationwide pattern of Gestapo-like tactics by
the IRS and DOJ against those who speak the truth is shown in detail at
www.Theft-By-Deception.com/declaration.html.

I will not stand by and allow myself, my family and my neighbors to be
extorted simply because some power-happy bureaucrats huff and puff about all
the nasty things they will do to anyone who does not “comply” with the IRS’
misapplication of the law. To the DOJ and the IRS I say this: You know I am
among the most vocal about this issue. Stop terrorizing the American
public, and come get me. Make an “example” of me. Surely if my position is
“frivolous” and completely devoid of merit, then the DOJ attorneys can
easily refute my position in front of a jury, and have me convicted and
imprisoned. (I’m not exactly hiding, am I?) You already have what would be
“Exhibit A” in my defense: my Theft By Deception video. So take your best
shot.

www.Theft-By-Deception.com
It’s time for the fraud to end.

This is complete BS. Anyone who follows it, is likely to owe
substantial amounts of money or land in jail. Courts have found
it to be frivolous, and imposed sanctions against those asserting
it. NO ONE has made these arguments and won.

MWH and other tax protestors are free to believe whatever he
wants to. But the IRS doesn't agree with their interpretation of
the law. Not a single judge, anywhere in the country, agrees with
them. And people who are misled by these arguments end up with
huge amounts of financial and even criminal liability.

For a discussion (and full rebuttal) of this sort of tax
protestor assertion, take a look at
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html.

--
Brett

************************************************** ***************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* lawyer@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
************************************************** ***************

The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only.
It isn't meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as
such. If you want legal advice, speak with a local lawyer
familiar with your state's laws who can review *all* of the facts
and the law applicable to your situation.
************************************************** ***************


"MWH" <res0n8e5@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:CyQZa.463$CN.216@nwrddc03.gnilink.net... YES! And I'd suggest reading even further: Dear Federal Government, PLEASE PROSECUTE ME. I, Larken Rose, have not filed a federal income tax return for
1997 or any subsequent year. This is not because I am protesting any law,
or because I do not want to pay my “fair share”; it is because I refuse to
be a victim of the biggest financial fraud in history. I also refuse to
remain silent while government lawyers illegally defraud my fellow Americans. People by the thousands are learning that the “conventional
wisdom” about the federal income tax is just plain wrong. As more and more
Americans are discovering that the law itself shows that the income of most
Americans is not taxable, DOJ and IRS officials are desperately trying to
distract from the issue by dishonestly portraying it as a frivolous “tax
protestor” argument, and by trying to silence (via court injunctions)
those who publicize the issue. This summary shows why the IRS and the
DOJ refuse to have an open, honest discussion about what the government’s own
regulations say: Point 1: The federal income tax applies only to one’s “taxable
income,” not to all income, and the income tax regulations (e.g. 26 CFR §§
1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.863-1(c)) clearly show that one’s taxable
domestic income is to be determined under the rules of 26 USC § 861(b) and the
related regulations beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8. (Other sections
explain when income from outside of the U.S. is taxable.) Point 2: So why does it matter whether we use those sections to
determine our taxable domestic income? Because more than 80 years of
statutory and regulatory history prove beyond any doubt that 26 USC § 861(b)
and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show income to be taxable only when it comes from
certain types of international or foreign commerce. In other words, contrary to
what “everyone knows,” most Americans do not receive taxable income,
and do not owe federal income taxes. IRS employees across the country refuse to honestly address the
issue, and instead resort to threats, evasions, and accusations, because
their own law books expose the biggest financial fraud in history: the
misrepresentation and misapplication of the federal income tax. (See
www.taxableincome.net for more information.) The nationwide pattern of Gestapo-like
tactics by the IRS and DOJ against those who speak the truth is shown in
detail at www.Theft-By-Deception.com/declaration.html. I will not stand by and allow myself, my family and my
neighbors to be extorted simply because some power-happy bureaucrats huff and
puff about all the nasty things they will do to anyone who does not “comply”
with the IRS’ misapplication of the law. To the DOJ and the IRS I say this:
You know I am among the most vocal about this issue. Stop terrorizing the
American public, and come get me. Make an “example” of me. Surely if
my position is “frivolous” and completely devoid of merit, then the DOJ
attorneys can easily refute my position in front of a jury, and have me
convicted and imprisoned. (I’m not exactly hiding, am I?) You already have
what would be “Exhibit A” in my defense: my Theft By Deception video. So
take your best shot. www.Theft-By-Deception.com It’s time for the fraud to end.