It doesn't matter how I define it. Other people feel that way based on whatever their definition is. My point was that what someone considers "moral" is subjective.

Sure!

Attached File


If you live off the grid and do all that stuff yourself, then none of it is income, since you didn't trade your labor for money (wages). Even if you did, the difference between the cost and the value received would be considered income, and in the case of labor, that would be 100%.  ($cost + $received = $income)

Like if you paid $3 for the materials to make your sweater, and sold it for $10, you'd have $7 of income to pay taxes on (-$3 + $10 = $7)

But if someone else provided the materials and you just knitted the sweater for him in exchange for $10, then you'd have $10 of income since you didn't pay anything for your own labor before selling it ($0 + $10 = $10).

Now don't go and confuse the "value" of your labor with the "cost" of your labor. Your labor is worth what someone will pay for it. Like the value of your sweater it's worth $10. However, the cost of your sweater was $3. So the difference between the cost ($3)  and the value received ($10) = your income ($7).

For your labor the cost = $0, since you don't pay any money for your own labor, and the value received for that labor is $10, thus your income = $10.

Otherwise known as "wages".

Income:
Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines gross income as income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) “compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.” I.R.C.

Gross income:
Section 61(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided by law, gross income means all income from whatever source derived. Under § 61, Congress intends to tax all gains or undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, over which taxpayers have complete dominion.

Using the I.R.S definitions everything is income.

I do not know you personally, so I do not wish to out right condem you. But your statements lead me to believe you are a loyalist. You probably would have sided with the Crown during the American Revolution. The Crown was the law at the time of the Revolution after all.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states
" That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

I believe that our government has exceeded the constraints put on it by the Constitution. And I have believed it for a long time. My belief is so strong, that I attempted to effect change by engaging in a tax revolt. I fought this battle for 4 years, and lost. My only solace is, that at least I tried.

Now I sit and watch as the Republic crumbles.

there are a lot of armed IRS agents for ..... reasons

everything is voluntary if you are ok with the consequences

maybe you should read the 16th amendment to the constitution

I love your shifting goalposts. I answered your questions and there really isn't a good argument on your side, so you switch to ad hominem to "not condemn" me as a "loyalist".

Ok mr the real and living man.

Are those gold fringes i see? Is this a maritime court? I officially invoke admirality proceedings! You have no right to question me!

I mean at the end of the day, you've already admitted defeat. Literally. All of this posturing from you but in the end, you pay your taxes like a good serf... Just like the rest of us.

So what's your point? That you pay taxes even though you don't like it but you understand the alternative is jail?

Um... welcome to the party pal. That's what the rest of us here are saying as well!

Ok you win. I admitted defeat in one battle. Did I say I surrendered? I definitely didn't jump in this conversation to defend the government or the I.R.S , you did. Enjoy your unrestricted Federal government.

My only permise from the beginning of my involvement in this thread has been very simple :

regardless of what you think or feel about paying taxes, the government has a monopoly on violence, so they win the argument and none of the ridiculous sovereign citizen ideology will protect someone trying to avoid paying taxes.

No part of that is defending the government or irs.

And you've provided perfect proof of my thesis - you tried to avoid paying taxes using these strategies and...

...you ended up staring down the barrel of the DOJ and accepted reality and paid and continue to pay because regardless of what you think or feel, the government has a monopoly on violence, so they won the argument and none of the ridiculous sovereign citizen ideology protected you.

I never mentioned sovereign citizen,  you did.

At any rate I just need one more post to bump this to the top. It helps the data capture algorithm.

Thanks for using key words.

I know, it was like you were trying to hide it!

Well, if what he is saying is true it does appear he won a partial victory in that he only had to pay 28k instead of the 60k the government said he owed.

If someone is willing to fight and use unusual tactics sometimes you can win partial victories


I knew a co worker who got partially out of a 40k amount of paying taxes from the IRS.  He was in the IRS office with an IRS employee who was black trying to work out his tax bill.  
The black employee was treating him like shit so in front of everyone in the office he yelled out that the black employee was a racist against white people

The black employee almost turned white at his accusation

He continued to rant about the office being racist and the supervisor came out and invited my co worker into his office.  My co-worker stated he was going to file a lawsuit against them and go to the papers about how the IRS was a racist organization

The supervisor stated let us see if we can work this out

To make a long story short after the supervisor made some phone calls they told him to pay 10k and they would all it even.  

He agreed and got out of paying the other 30k.

I'd be interested to know what the breakdown of what was owed looked like before deciding how it appears.

Another poster in this thread pointed out that the penalties and fees for not paying for failing to pay far exceeded the actual tax due.

It's entirely possible that the 28k was what he initially owed in taxes, and the 32k was penalties and late fees, and in the end, they accepted for him to just pay the tax and waived the extra stuff.

Which wouldn't be a partial victory. Because in the end he still had to pay all his taxes.

If you could knock your tax bill in half (28k vs 60k) by just refusing to pay for a few years, everyone would do it.