Ask a Tax Lawyer about the Tax Law

reply to post by GovtFlu


People often receive property of significant value, like expensive gifts or life insurance proceeds, which are not subject to income tax treatment. This does not mean they are not required to fill out some sort of return or report the receipt of property. This property can be subject to gift or estate taxes.

You also could be hurting yourself in the long run and invite unwanted attention from the IRS if you do not report things you are supposed to report. Let us assume you receive a large life insurance pay out that you do not report. You use the payout to buy a fancy house, cars, or other similar expense. If you are making relatively little income, the IRS is going to question how you are able to buy the things you purchased with your life insurance pay out with the small amount of income you had. They will then focus attention on you which is the last thing you want, even if you are somebody who has paid all his taxes.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Under the income tax system, the federal government takes a percentage of any "income" you make. Generally, income is anything of value one receives except gifts and bequests. Gifts and bequests are subject to the gift and estate taxes.

The income tax applies to individuals who make income, but the government can put a lien on individuals' property if they do not pay income tax.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


I appreciate you replying to my inquiry, however, you did not offer any useful insight or new information. Obviously, I realize that I could look at the IRS's website or hire an accountant. What I did find when I looked at their website in the past was that I could claim my son as dependant as long as I filled out one a form promising to get him a social security number in the next 12 months. However, I don't want to get him one since there is absolutely no advantage in doing so and it should be his own personal choice to "volunteer" in the tax system. According to the SSA's website in the FAQ section it is "completely voluntary" to apply for an infant's social security number, as it should be considering they have zero income. Do you know if there is any requirement by law that a dependant must have a social security number. I have one, I have income, I pay taxes, I just want to claim my son like everyone else without having to promise away his future wages and possible requirement to serve in military conflict. Thanks again.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Under the income tax system, the federal government takes a percentage of any "income" you make. Generally, income is anything of value one receives except gifts and bequests. Gifts and bequests are subject to the gift and estate taxes.

The income tax applies to individuals who make income, but the government can put a lien on individuals' property if they do not pay income tax.

With all due respect, you didn't answer my question. I respectfully ask the question again; What is the subject of "The Personal Income Tax"? Is it a direct tax or an indirect tax? Is it a tax on People, Property or Activities?

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The tax applies to people who engage in the activity of receiving income. What do you mean by direct vs. indirect tax?

reply to post by budaruskie


I am not going to give you legal advice. However, I do not think lacking a social security number is a defense to tax evasion. You might end up harming your child if he lacks a social security number. He will have a difficult time finding a job, applying for school, opening a bank account, or receiving a loan without a social security number.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

The tax applies to people who engage in the activity of receiving income. What do you mean by direct vs. indirect tax?

My understanding is that direct taxes are either capitation taxes or taxes on property. Indirect taxes would be excise taxes, imposts or duties. Would that be correct? It reads to me that you are saying the "income" tax is an indirect tax on activities, and the subject of that tax would be the activity of earning income, is that a correct interpretation? If this is what you are saying, could you point me to the specific section of the Internal Revenue Code where a tax has been laid upon that subject?

Thank you for answering the question more directly, it is more than greatly appreciated.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


I must say that our correspondance in this particular thread is rather disappointing. I would like to recap what I have learned throughout our discussion:

Q: I asked if there was a way to claim an infant without a social security number as dependant and if so could I amend last year's returns, pretty straigtforward.

A: "I would suggest you talk to an accountant about squaring away your tax return. The do-it-yourselfers can visit the IRS website at their own peril to find forms and other information."

Understandably unsatisfied with the lack of substance contained by your answer I tried in ernest to get something of value by asking a specific question along with stating my specific goal.

Q:Do you know if there is any requirement by law that a dependant must have a social security number?

A: "I do not think lacking a social security number is a defense to tax evasion."

Maybe I missed the part where there was even a hint of tax evasion. I must say that you are one fantastic "lawyer" indeed. Never once anwering a specific question, deferring questions to accountants who would presumably hire a "tax lawyer" for counsel if a law was in question, and offering your own personal ideas on the difficulties of life without a SS#. Am I mistaken or did you ask us, to ask you, questions pertaining to tax law? My BS radar has a huge pink dot the size of a urinal mint on it right about now.
Oh, and for the record, I have personally opened bank accounts (in the capacity of a banker) for people without social security numbers, there is a standard legally and bank approved procedure. In my current position in the field of construction I can honestly say that I have been the only person out of 100+ on my job site with a social security number on several occassions. Furthermore, it is my opinion that offering any amount of my son's future earnings to a system that no one argues is financially solvent (social security) and by all estimations will offer mine as well as future generations zero benefit, is necesarily causing him harm.

No offense to the OP, but I have a hard time taking someone who is inside the system, who was educated in the system, who is a perpetuator of the system, at their word.

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety


DUDE!!! SHHHHHHHHH!!!! You're letting everyone know the truth! How do you think people will react when they find out that they've volutarily abrogated their Common law rights in exchange for the Uniform Commercial Code, are really "Persons" which are nothing more than corporations and are also, in effect, serfs!?!?!?!?

Now watch all of the deniers, who haven't spent so much as a second of their indentured-servitude to investigate or evaluate any of this, come to the aid of their master and defend their prison!

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by budaruskie

 

I am not going to give you legal advice. However, I do not think lacking a social security number is a defense to tax evasion. You might end up harming your child if he lacks a social security number. He will have a difficult time finding a job, applying for school, opening a bank account, or receiving a loan without a social security number.

EXACTLY!!! All of which are goods things. However, I wouldn't expect someone brainwashed in public schools to understand that - let alone someone who makes their "living" feeding off the tit of the corporation!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Section 1 of the internal revenue code reads " there is hereby imposed on the taxabgle income off..."

If you want to get picky with semantics, the tax is imposed specifically on the income. However, "income" does not go to prison if a person fails to pay taxes. The IRS can put liens on property which is not "income" that belongs to a person that fails to their taxes. So in all practicality, the tax is placed on the individual.

I for one cannot understand why you are so concerned with whether the tax is direct or indirect. Perhaps you are trying to construct some argument as to why the income tax is unconstitutional, unfair, etc. I cannot defend the income tax laws as always being fair. As far as their constitutionality is concerned, the Supreme Court has held that the tax system is constitution.

No matter how eloquent, articulate, and well reasoned your argument against the tax laws are; no matter how many people on ATS high five you for your argument, you will get slaughtered in a court of law if you even try to raise these arguments.

reply to post by budaruskie


It is not wise to give or take legal advice over an internet message board. If you want free help for your situation, you might try seeing if there is a legal clinic at your local law school. That is why I am not giving you the legal advice you want.

If you read my first post, I am keeping the focus of this thread on the tax law system at general and am not giving legal advice.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Section 1 of the internal revenue code reads " there is hereby imposed on the taxabgle income off..."

If you want to get picky with semantics, the tax is imposed specifically on the income. However, "income" does not go to prison if a person fails to pay taxes. The IRS can put liens on property which is not "income" that belongs to a person that fails to their taxes. So in all practicality, the tax is placed on the individual.

I for one cannot understand why you are so concerned with whether the tax is direct or indirect. Perhaps you are trying to construct some argument as to why the income tax is unconstitutional, unfair, etc. I cannot defend the income tax laws as always being fair. As far as their constitutionality is concerned, the Supreme Court has held that the tax system is constitution.

No matter how eloquent, articulate, and well reasoned your argument against the tax laws are; no matter how many people on ATS high five you for your argument, you will get slaughtered in a court of law if you even try to raise these arguments.

Why are you attempting to frame my questions as arguments? Why have you answered my question and immediately assumed it would be I who would "get picky about semantics"? What is it you are not telling me? What is "taxable income"?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


With all due respect, I am trying to figure out where you are getting. I do not know why you care if the tax is "indirect" vs. "direct" or imposed on individuals, property, or actions. All I can tell you is how the system generally works.

With regards to the definition of "taxable income" the code is tautological. It defines income as "income from whatever source derived." Taxable income is the gross income minus deductions. Generally, income is any property you receive except for gifts and bequests. The code lists exceptions to the general rule that all property you receive (other than gifts or bequests) is income.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

With all due respect, I am trying to figure out where you are getting. I do not know why you care if the tax is "indirect" vs. "direct" or imposed on individuals, property, or actions. All I can tell you is how the system generally works.

With regards to the definition of "taxable income" the code is tautological. It defines income as "income from whatever source derived." Taxable income is the gross income minus deductions. Generally, income is any property you receive except for gifts and bequests. The code lists exceptions to the general rule that all property you receive (other than gifts or bequests) is income.

With all due respect to you sir, the title of this thread reads:

"Ask a Tax Lawyer about the Tax Law"

Are you suggesting that I have not asked a Tax Lawyer about the Tax Law?
Are you suggesting that the subject of a tax is not relevant? By tautological do you mean to say repetitious and circumlocutory in nature? Are you telling me that the Code defines "taxable income" as "gross income" or it defines income as "gross income"? In an earlier post you either you implied or I inferred that the subject of the tax was on the activity of earning income, but now you refer to income as property. This is why I am asking, is the "income" tax a direct tax on property, or is it an indirect tax on a specific activity?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


You bring up an interesting point. I am not trying to argue whether the tax law is fair or just. The tax law has many problems. However, I am trying to explain what the tax law is.

Law is not like science. In science, nature behaves as it behaves regardless of what the majority of people in the science establishment think.

The law is different. The law is what judges say it is. You may agree or disagree with the judges' logic, but nevertheless the judges have the final word when it comes to the law. If five out of nine judges on the Supreme Court have a certain opinion about whether a statute (like the tax code) is constitutional or how it should be interpreted, that opinion is the law no matter how much you or I may disagree.

Given that the law is made by judges, you should very much care what someone who is part of the establishment has to say about the law. Judges are generally not anarchists who frequent conspiracy web sites. Judges are older people who are very much part of the establishment.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The taxable income is the gross income minus any deductions.

The definition of gross income is tautological if you look it up in the code. The code defines gross income as income from whatever source derived. Of course, this sounds tautological, don't you think?

Your line of questioning is unique. Whether a tax is direct v. indirect or on property vs. persons vs. activities is not something tax lawyers give much thought to. Tax lawyers are concerned when the government slaps a lien on their clients property or is threatening to put their clients in jail, but we do not sit down and worry about these semantics.

I was guessing that you were trying either interested in the mechanics of how the income tax is enforced (i.e. whether it is enforced against people or their property) or on what exactly is taxed (i.e. the income people earn vs. anything else that could be taxed.)

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

You bring up an interesting point. I am not trying to argue whether the tax law is fair or just. The tax law has many problems. However, I am trying to explain what the tax law is.

Law is not like science. In science, nature behaves as it behaves regardless of what the majority of people in the science establishment think.

The law is different. The law is what judges say it is. You may agree or disagree with the judges' logic, but nevertheless the judges have the final word when it comes to the law. If five out of nine judges on the Supreme Court have a certain opinion about whether a statute (like the tax code) is constitutional or how it should be interpreted, that opinion is the law no matter how much you or I may disagree.

Given that the law is made by judges, you should very much care what someone who is part of the establishment has to say about the law. Judges are generally not anarchists who frequent conspiracy web sites. Judges are older people who are very much part of the establishment.

This is just my point though. I do not think you are trying to deceive anyone here, but you were educated by the very system that is trying to perpetuate itself. That is like asking a CIA agent to tell me about MKULTRA....aint going to get the full story.

As much as everyone is convinced judges have the final say in law, that is absoluetley false. They only have the final say as long as the peopel lie down and let it be so. If the american people wanted things changed, they wuld change, end of story.

Laws are also, in no way made by judges. Laws are enforced by judges. 3 Branches friend. Might want to look into them.

Finally, the reason these things keep perpetuating themselves(economic cycles, poverty, etc) is because we continue to listen to those in the establishment, instead of changing the establishment. When you let the very people who gain power from the problems try to solve the problems, you run into a bit of a vicious cycle.

What I want, is actual free, rational thought, not regurgitation's of the same things that have led us to where we are.

So, congrats on going to school for tax law. Good for you. In no way does that qualify you to tell people what is ACTUALLY happening.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Uh huh. I sure wouldn't want tax law advice from someone who has actually studied tax law, has a graduate degree in it and real world experience! That would be crazy!!!
I'd rely on fringe quick buck internet baloney if I needed advice!