ENSURE THAT YOU RECORD THE CHECKMATE AGAINST UNLAWFULL ACTIONS
From Larkin Rose....
Dear List Subscriber,
And now, the instructions for what to do with it. It's just a form letter; two pages with a one-page enclosure (six questions about the law). Mainly it just needs your name and address at the bottom, and the proper date put in (at the top of the letter AND at the top of the second page). The main letter goes to Pam Olson (the new Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy), but I also really want everyone who sends it to also send a copy to John Stossel at ABC News (his address is at the bottom of the letter). If he gets a few hundred letters about it, he might pay attention.
If you check out the letter, you'll see that ANYONE can send it. It doesn't even matter whether you understand or agree with the 861/"source" issue. The letter doesn't say what YOU believe about the law; it only says that you think the government should openly address the substance of the issue. Therefore, feel free to get everyone you
can think of to send a copy too. Numbers are everything here, and thisis NOT just another waste of effort nicely asking the government to obey the law. (I may explain this more later.)
Finally, I would appreciate it if AFTER you send the letter (whether today or a month from now), you send me your initials, the state you live in, and the date the letter was sent (for example: "L.R. (PA) 10/30/02") so I can post on the web site a list showing how many people
have sent it.
I may rant more about this later, but again, this is NOT only worthwhile if the feds cared about the law and due process (which they don't). This is a step, not towards asking the feds to be nice, but towards FORCING them to obey the law. It should only take a couple minutes to
do, and it WILL make them start to feel the heat if we can get a few hundred sent. Send one yourself, and see who else you can get to send one.
The letter can now be downloaded by anyone from here:
taxableincome.net
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
larken@taxableincome.net
theft-by-deception.com
======================
[date]
Pamela F. Olson
Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy
1500 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Room 1334
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Ms. Olson,
From various comments you have made, I can see that you believe that the majority of Americans have a legal (and moral) obligation to surrender to the IRS a portion of their income. Your comment below from a recent speech shows that you also understand that if the citizenry does not believe in such an obligation to pay up, getting them to “comply” by threats and punishments is a difficult task.
“Research by social scientists suggests that, when it comes to complying with the law, the belief that the laws are legitimate and ought to be complied with has a stronger motivating effect than the fear of being caught.”
Of course, as some of your other comments also imply, maintaining a widespread feeling of obligation to obey is impossible if the public does not even know exactly what the law requires of them. (Thus, the IRS’ stated mission of helping citizens understand and comply with their tax obligations makes sense.) However, despite your glowing words about Commissioner Rossotti’s accomplishments in the field of “customer service,” many of us have seen the “other” side of the IRS: the one that lies, cheats, steals, threatens, evades, accuses, extorts, and blatantly ignores both procedural rules and rules for determining how much tax is owed. When government employees disregard the law, faith in an obligation to obey their commands of course diminishes.
In your acceptance speech, you mentioned a desire to focus more on those who “thumb their noses” at the IRS, and less on trivial nit-picking over the returns of the average filer. However, you seem unaware of the fact that many “nose-thumbers” started out by politely asking questions of the IRS, which the IRS refused to answer. Over and over again, the IRS has responded to perfectly reasonable questions, not with actual answers, but with threats of fines or imprisonment, or accusations that the ones asking questions are law-breakers. Often the IRS “responses” also include a statement saying that the IRS refuses to respond to further inquiries on the matter. Is it any wonder that many people are losing their belief that they have an obligation to obey the IRS?
Pamela F. Olson 2 [date]
Many thousands now believe, based on what the IRS’ own regulations say, that the income of the average American is not subject to the federal income tax, and that the law (while perfectly valid) is being grossly misapplied. Of course, this is contrary to conventional wisdom, but this is not a country of “rule-by-conventional-wisdom”; it is a country of rule-by-law. And what these people see written in the law books themselves, and what they see in the IRS’ Gestapo-like responses, gives them every reason to doubt conventional wisdom.
The number of those people is growing by the thousands, as your predecessors no doubt warned you. To be blunt, thuggery and threats cannot preserve “compliance” with IRS demands when tens of thousands of Americans believe they do not legally owe the IRS a dime. If you believe that most Americans legally owe federal income taxes, would it not be reasonable to have an open, honest discussion about the law itself, and answer a few perfectly reasonable questions?
Please supply me with written, direct answers to the enclosed questions. If you believe that an open discussion of the law will help improve “compliance,” then you will be happy to know that your answers will be publicly posted, in their entirety, on the internet at www.taxableincome.net, one of the primary web sites questioning the conventional wisdom about the income tax. In effect, you will be getting free publicity targeted directly at those who now believe that they are not required to file or pay.
Both for the sake of “compliance,” as well as for respect of the principles of due process and representative government, such requests should not be responded to with evasions, accusations, threats, and insults. The people deserve reasonable and honest answers to reasonable and honest questions. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
[name]
[address]
[address]
(P.S. I understand that on 10/30/02 you were sent a copy of the video, “Theft By Deception,” which should show you how ridiculous it is to try to dismiss the issue out of hand as being patently “frivolous” and without merit.)
cc: Mr. John Stossel
c/o ABC News 20/20
147 Columbus Ave
New York, NY 10023
Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income
1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b), and the related regulations beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8, to determine my taxable domestic income?
2) If some individuals-including myself-should not use those sections for determining their taxable domestic income, please show me where the regulations say who should or should not use those sections for that.
Reason for first two questions: The regulations under 26 USC § 861(b) (26 CFR § 1.861-8 and following) begin by stating that Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms “how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States” after gross income from the U.S. has been determined. (The regulations then say that Sections 862(b) and 863(a) describe how to determine taxable income from outside of the U.S.) Section 1.861-1(a)(1) of the regulations confirms that “taxable income from sources within the United States” is to be determined in accordance with the rules of 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8. (See also 26 CFR §§ 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c).)
3) If a U.S. citizen lives and works exclusively within the 50 states, and receives all of his income from within the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show such income to be taxable?
Reason for question: Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921, statutory predecessor of 26 USC § 861 and following, stated that income from within the U.S. was taxable for foreigners and for U.S. citizens and corporations deriving most of their income from federal possessions (but did not say the same about the domestic income of most Americans). The regulations under the equivalent section of the 1939 Code (e.g. §§ 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9, 29.119-10 (1945)) showed the same thing. The current regulations at 1.861-8 still show income to be taxable only when derived from certain “specific sources and activities,” which, concerning domestic income, still relate only to foreigners and certain Americans receiving income from federal possessions (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4), 1.861-8(f)(1)).
4) Should one refer to 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether the “items” of income he receives (such as compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?
Reason for question: The regulations (26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(3)) state that a “class of gross income” consists of the “items” of income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, etc.). The regulations (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(b)(1)) then direct the reader to “paragraph (d)(2)” of the section, which provides that such “classes of gross income” may include some income which is excluded for federal income tax purposes.
5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the income of the average American not on that list?
Reason for question: After defining “exempt income” to mean income which is exempt, eliminated, or excluded for federal income tax purposes (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)), the regulations give a list of types of income which are not exempt (i.e. which are subject to tax), which includes the domestic income of foreigners, certain foreign income of Americans, income of certain possessions corporations, and income of international and foreign sales corporations, but which does not include the domestic income of the average American (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)).
6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject to the federal income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?
Reason for question: Older income tax regulations defining “gross income” and “net income” said that neither income exempted by statute “or fundamental law” were subject to the tax (§ 39.21-1 (1956)), and said that in addition to those types of income exempted by statute, other types of income were exempt because they were, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government” (§ 39.22(b)-1 (1956)). |
