Subject: Complying With The Law (Part 7) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ( Note: Prior messages in this series can be found here: http://www.synapticsparks.info/LarkenRose/index.html ) Dear Subscriber, Once upon a time there was an income tax law, and that law included a section which said (to paraphrase) that in the case of CERTAIN people (i.e., foreigners, and Americans with possessions income) income from inside the U.S., such as wages earned here and interest from domestic investments, was taxable. Why didn't it mention the domestic income of ALL U.S. citizens and residents? Was it the mother of all typos? Was it something that has since been "fixed"? Is income earned here NOW taxable for all of us? Let's trace that section of law through the years, and see if we can find out. 1) Through the 1920's, the section (then 217) was very plainly only saying that domestic income was taxable "In the case of a nonresident alien or of a citizen entitled to the benefits of section 262 [meaning those who get most of their income from federal possessions, such as Guam or Puerto Rico]." It said it right up front, and in plain English. No one could mistake the section to mean that domestic income is taxable for ALL Americans. 2) In 1932, that section of the law mostly remained the same, except the phrase about "in the case of a nonresident alien..." disappeared. By itself, the section (then 119) seemed to be saying that the listed types of domestic income are taxable for anyone who receives them. HOWEVER, the official Executive Branch regulations, which require the approval of Congress before they are passed, did NOT change. They continued to say that the listed types of domestic income are taxable for FOREIGNERS, and for Americans with POSSESSIONS income. And they said that in several places. So the correct application of the law had not changed. (In the following couple of decades, however, some (but not all) of the regulations admitting that vanished from the law books.) In 1954, when the section became Section 861 (which has remained essentially the same ever since), Congress specifically said that the application of that part of the law had NOT significantly changed (except for a slight change in an obscure rule about nonresident aliens temporarily in the country). In other words, what Section 119 meant before, Section 861 means now. The statute itself changed hardly at all, but the wording of the related regulations underwent some extremely suspicious changes: 3) You may recall from prior messages in this series that Section 1.861-8 of the regulations is where we're repeated told to go to determine our "taxable income from sources within the United States." Well, what the equivalent section said prior to 1954 was that the listed types of domestic income were, after deductions, to be included as taxable income, in the case of NONRESIDENT ALIENS and FOREIGN CORPORATIONS doing business in the U.S. After 1954, the "in the case of..." phrase once again disappeared. 4) That section, before and after 1954, gave an example of how to determine taxable domestic income. All the numbers remained the same, but prior to 1954 the example was plainly about "a nonresident alien individual," but after 1954 that phrase was changed to "a taxpayer." 5) The regulation about domestic interest previously said, as plain as day, that interest on U.S. investments was to be included in the "gross income" of foreigners and people with possessions income. After 1954, the section remained exactly the same, except for the REMOVAL of the phrase about foreigners and possessions stuff. (Remember, Congress said that application of this part of the law had NOT changed.) 6) After 1977, though Section 861 of the statutes didn't change at all, the main regulation for determining taxable domestic income (Section 1.861-8) went from ONE page in length to over THIRTY pages, and many new "legalese" terms were introduced (which did not exist in the statutes or any other regulations), such as "operative sections," "specific sources," "statutory groupings," etc. The section STILL says that domestic income is taxable in the case of people engaged in certain activities (including foreigners doing business here, and Americans doing business in federal possessions), but it now explains it in the most convoluted manner imaginable. Again, the history of the section shows that the scope and application of the section has NOT CHANGED since the 1920's, when it obviously said that domestic income was taxable for FOREIGNERS and for Americans with POSSESSIONS income. So what was the purpose of the changes shown above? They all have the tendency of leading the reader to believe that domestic income is taxable for EVERYONE, though they never come right out and SAY that. Why have those sections NEVER, in over 80 years, said anything about the domestic income of an American who lives and works just in the 50 states? I don't at all mind when people at first think that what I'm suggesting can't possibly be true. But whatever the truth is, there must be an explanation for the evidence that exists. It sure LOOKS like someone was trying to make it more difficult to understand that the sections for determining taxable domestic income only show income to be taxable for certain people engaged in international trade, but NOT for all Americans. Can you think of any innocent explanation for all those changes? Some people think that merely calling something a "conspiracy theory" makes it untrue. But of course, sometimes there ARE conspiracies, where a group of people cooperate to commit a fraud. The fact that this would be the biggest financial fraud ever (tricking 100,000,000 people into handing over a trillion dollars a year that they don't actually owe) doesn't automatically make it untrue. Again, whatever the truth is, there must BE an explanation of the evidence. When the government says "frivolous" and "nonsense," and harrasses, vilifies, robs, censors, and imprisons people, that's not an explanation of the evidence--it's merely an effort to SUPPRESS the evidence. Now why, do you suppose, might they want to do that, instead of explaining what it really means? If I'm off my rocker, or if I'm missing something, misquoting or misreading something, wouldn't it behoove the government to politely point that out, instead of trying to forcibly silence me? Shouldn't they be EAGER to answer questions, explain sections of law, and clear up all this "confusion"? So why won't they? Sincerely, Larken Rose www.larkenrose.com (P.S. I know how to admit it when I made a mistake: apparently it was Voltaire, rather than Plato, who is quoted as having said "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." Thanks to the several people on my list who pointed that out.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkXR4e0ACgkQGmVFo/iGj31E+AP9EB5HHOhqqORe+WezR4xKqjn+S8Sh pEATra0TJCSInnh9TLSYujNmsqpIi4W0633g+gn+3iTwwtYtv3AtRhe7oCcztDXd4BUl 9lFm6ArhVIPJBNW09cAdS5D1W9HTEtEiQ2cXbAVS7HdFlsWuW0hWxsq3D8rBwYf5pjEd Jx6GYHs= =20US -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to 861-on@mail-list.com