Sociology Talk

JTEM · Guest

John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

Dale E · Guest

Mr. Macdonald chose to ignore the previous post and jumped into
another thread where the following exchange happened. Since Mr.
Macdonald chose to ignore my reply in the following exchange, I am
taking the liberty of numbering, and addressing, the additional points.

JTEM · Guest

"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

Hale_E · Guest

Dale E" <DaleE@synapticsparks.info> wrote in message
newsnews.pas.earthlink.net...

As posted previously, and ignored by Mr. Macdonald:
by everyone DaleE@synapticsparks.info

Hale_E · Guest

On Mar 7, 2:43 am, Dale E <DaleE@synapticsparks.info> wrote:

Mr. Macdonald chose to ignore the previous post
another thread where the following exchange happened. Since Mr.
Macdonald chose to ignore my reply in the following exchange, I am

Guest

Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:

Guest

On Mar 6, 1:32 pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mettas Mother · Guest

You had wrongly assumed confusion for observation. You are forgiven. The mutilations are acts of
nature of craziness. Whether they mutilate or not is none of my business. They the men and women
are doing it together and willingly, so how could I be the misogynist here? The decision of a
community to live in a prescribed manner different from others is not a crime by itself. For
example Americans are not very compassionate towards their prisoners and that shows their attitude
and characters as a whole. Humanity as a whole is divided like broken glass and where to start to
find common ground?

<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:1173277765.102003.159900@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...

moonchild · Guest

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 04:26:37 -0500, buckeye-elo wrote:

That's the plan! It is a way of subsidizing white flight in the South,
not a way to help poor blacks.

--
Brian (not wanting to be a messiah): "You are all individuals..."
Crowd (in unison): "We are all individuals..."
Monty Python's "Life Of Brian"
http://www.spampoison.com

John Popelish · Guest

JTEM wrote:

Guest

On Mar 7, 10:02 am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mettas Mother · Guest

When I said that men and women do it together it means that the adults of the society and community
who are willingly living in a prescribed manner are doing it to their younger ones in accordance
with their religions or believes or customs or traditions or cultures. Observing from outside ,
yes, it seems brutal. But since it is done to all in the society then though it is cruel it is
acceptable to them and even democratical and civilised nations would not want to interfere. Even in
non-religious communist China the Muslims circumcise. Who are we to protest? Even a human rights
supporting Europe allows circumcision! Who are we to protest?

I do not belong to a community that circumcises its members. And I am not circumcised. So I have
no idea about what it feels like. But I will not go around imposing my moral values on others. Who
am I to do so and challenge thousands of years of religions believes cultures traditions and
customs? I will make sure that my descendents will not be circumcised, other than that I am not a
community leader and no one gives a damn about what I think!

<matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1173284363.306671.184160@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...

Dale E · Guest

"It seems Mr. Macdonald is afraid to directly address me and have that
debate recorded." Is the statement that Mr. Macdonald left in his
reply post to the above (shown on the web page) when he posted the
court case that follows.

With such action, Mr. Macdonald has still failed to directly address
me. And Mr. Macdonald has still failed to address the previously
numbered counterpoints.

Since the court case Mr. Macdonald contains 1745 words, I am going to
heavily trim the extraneous from that case. My intent is to address
all salient points, so if I trim too deep, Mr. Macdonald will have to
re-introduce any points I snipped in error, in a subsequent post.

Here then, is the trimmed version with all the points numbered.
DENNIS H. CARMICHAEL, PRO SE,Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES,Defendant.

(No. 04-190T) (United States Court of Federal Claims) (Doc 2004-21087)

[9.] In the United States Court of Federal Claims

[9] Mr. Macdonald makes the same error in presenting this court case
as he did in presenting the Kangaroo Tax Court's case above.

[9] You are hereby called on your dishonesty:

4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006)
Importance of Court Decisions

1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are
considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either
examiners or taxpayers to support a position.
2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others.
A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land
and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal
Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners,
Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.
3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District
Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the
particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of
lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for
other taxpayers.

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html

[9a] Mr. Macdonald is fully aware that "CLAIMS COURT" rulings create
no legal precedence just like the IRM citation quoted above shows.

[10] Dear Lurker, as you read through this, understand there is a
conflict between the IRM (Internal Revenue Manual a.k.a. IRS employee
handbook) that says those lower court cases do NOT set precedent, and
the judge's citations of those very same citations that attempt to
make you believe some precedent has been set. They can't both be
right, therefore one or both of them are wrong. Since at a minimum,
one of them is wrong, that means a 'government' function is being
executed improperly... WRONGLY. If the IRS can ignore the
'precedence' of these other cases, so can I.

[10] Specific question to Mr. Macdonald: Which one is wrong? The IRM
or the judge?

<snip>

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRADEN, Judge

<snip>

C. Disposition Of The Government's April 9, 2004 Motion To Dismiss.

[11] Plaintiff argues that taxes on gross income, defined as all
income "from whatever source derived," 26 U.S.C. section 61(a), do not
include taxes on his personal income. See Pl. Br. at 11.

[11] The positioning the quotation marks is incorrect, thus the
definition of gross income presented is incorrect.

Sec. 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all
income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)
the following items:

[12] Specific and direct question to you, Mr. Macdonald: Do you agree
or disagree that the
phrase "all income from whatever source derived" means "everything
that comes in"?

[13] Plaintiff further contends that the legal scope of the word
"source" does not cover his personal income. Id. at 10-11 ("[26 U.
S.C. section 861] and the regulations thereunder determine the sources
of income for purposes of the income tax.").

[14] The Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on the income of every
individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States. See 26
U.S.C. section 1; see also 26 C.F.R. section 1.1-1.

[14] This judge just pulled a Richard Macdonald. Since this judge is
not available to answer specific questions, that task falls to Mr.
Macdonald. Failure to answer is an admission that.... Well,
readers, the admission will be clear by reading the questions asked.

Sec. 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a
single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and (2)
every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined
in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is The tax is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
The rest of the table omitted as not necessary to make point [14]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of --- a tax determined
in accordance with the following table:

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of --- a tax
determined in accordance with the following table:

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of --- a tax
determined in accordance with the following table:

(e) Estates and trusts
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of --- a tax determined
in accordance with the following table:

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),
on the income of a nonresident alien individual. For optional tax in
the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income of less than $10,000
(less than $5,000 for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1970)
see section 3. The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by
subtracting the allowable deductions from gross income). The tax is
determined in accordance with the table contained in section 1.

[14a] Specific question for Mr. Macdonald: Is the tax determined
(calculated) in accordance with each of the tables shown in each of
the five subsections (a) through (e) of section 1?

[14b] Specific question for Mr. Macdonald: Is the tax due calculated
upon the gross income or the taxable income?

[14c] Specific question for Mr. Macdonald: Does 26 C.F.R. section
1.1-1 state:
"The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by subtracting the
allowable deductions from gross income). The tax is determined in
accordance with the table contained in section 1."

[14d] Specific question for Mr. Macdonald: If the taxable income is
zero, what is the tax due?

[11] "[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived,
including (but not limited to) the [listed] items[.]" 26 U.S.C.
section 61(a) (emphasis added).

[11] This point is a continuation of the point so numbered above.
Continuation of examination of this point awaits Mr. Macdonald's
answer to the specific question asked as point 12. (See above.)

The outstanding points that follow will not be addressed until Mr.
Macdonald answers the specific questions above.

[15] In addition, compensation is explicitly included in the
definition of "[g]ross income." Id.

[16] Plaintiff listed income as "[w]ages, salaries, tips, etc." on his
1997, 1998, and 1999 income tax return. See Def. Exs. 1, 4, and 7.

[17] In addition, plaintiff rendered services to his employer and
received a salary as remuneration. See Def. Exs. 2, 5, 8-9.

[18] Therefore, as a matter of law, plaintiff's salary is compensation
and gross income. See 26 U.S.C. section 61.

[19] Plaintiff mistakenly believes that 26 U.S.C. section 861 applies
to the tax liability of a United States citizen with domestic income.

[20] This section, however; which is part of Subchapter N, Part 1,
titled "Source Rules and General Rules Relating to Foreign Income,"
sets forth the rules used to determine whether income is derived from
a foreign or domestic source.

[21] See Great-West Life Assur. Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180,
183 (Ct. Cl. 1982) ("The determination of where income is derived or
'sourced' is generally of no moment to . . . United States citizens .
.. . for such persons are subject to tax under I.R.C. section 1 . . .
on their worldwide income.");

[22] see also Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C.M. 2002-18, 2002 WL 71029
at *2, aff'd, 2002 WL 31936476 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 U.S.
2105 (2003) ("The source rules do not exclude from U.S. taxation
income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States.").

[23] In addition, IRS Notice 2001-40, 2001-1 C.B. 1355, advises
taxpayers that "[t]he courts have categorically rejected contentions
that U.S. citizens are not lawfully subject to Federal income tax on
their income from all sources[.]"

[24] Plaintiff may not be aware that other similarly situated
taxpayers have challenged the definition of the "source" of income in
the tax code and that other trial courts summarily have dismissed such
claims. See, e.g., United States v. Darland, 2003 WL 21153269 at *3
(D.Md. 2003)

[25] ("[c]ourts have routinely rejected the 'Section 861 argument.'");
United States v. Bell, 238 F. Supp.2d 696, 700-01 (M.D. Pa. 2003)

[26] (the argument "rests purely on semantics and takes the
regulations promulgated under Section 861 out of context.");
Loofbourrow v. Commissioner, 208 F. Supp.2d 698, 710 (S.D. Tex. 2002)

[27] (plaintiff's argument takes regulations out of context); Williams
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136 (2000)

[28] ("[p]etitioner's arguments are . . . tax-protestor rhetoric that
has been universally rejected by this and other courts.").

[29] In addition, the predecessor court to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has defined the "source" of income for
taxation purposes. See Ritter v. United States, 393 F.2d 823, 829 (Ct.
Cl. 1968)

[30] ("The law is well settled that the statutory definition of gross
income is broad enough to include as compensation any economic or
financial benefit from any source, conferred in any form on an
employee, unless specifically exempted by statute.").

[31] Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has considered the
definition of income on numerous occasions and consistently held that
it is more than broad enough to include plaintiff's income in this
case. See Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987)

[32] (holding "legal sources also commonly define 'income' to mean
'any money that comes in[.]'"); C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S.
426, 430 (1955)

[33] ("the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those
specifically exempted."); C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945)

[34] ("[the code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any
economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as
compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.").

[35] The court understands that plaintiff interprets the law
differently, however, the fact that all income regardless of source is
subject to federal income tax is well settled law.

<snip>

--
http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/richardmacdonald.html

Guest

On Mar 7, 11:42 am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: