Subject: Plain as Day -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Subscriber, By far the most common argument made against the 861 evidence boils down to "You're not supposed to look there! Those rules are for someone else!" Oddly, the IRS and tax professionals can't seem to agree amongst themselves who SHOULD use those rules, but somehow they're sure (some of the time) that it's not you and me. There are LOTS of rules in the tax code that only apply to certain people, and in every case, the rules make it abundantly clear, right up front, to WHOM the rules apply. For example, let's compare two sections: Section 860 and Section 861. (Section 860 is the last section in Subchapter M, and Section 861 is the first in Subchapter N, so despite being right next to each other, they aren't at all about the same things.) Let's begin with Section 860, and see if we can tell WHO is supposed to use the rules found therein. Is it everyone? Is it just certain people? Here is where the section appears in the arrangement of the code: --------------------- TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE Subtitle A - Income Taxes CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES Subchapter M - Regulated Investment Companies and Real Estate Investment Trusts PART III - PROVISIONS WHICH APPLY TO BOTH REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES AND REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS Sec. 860. Deduction for deficiency dividends (a) General rule - If a determination with respect to any QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITY results in any adjustment for any taxable year..." (b) Qualified investment entity defined - For purposes of this section, the term "QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITY" means - (1) a regulated investment company, and (2) a real estate investment trust." --------------------- Notice how often it just slaps you in the face, saying who those rules are for. The related regulations are the same, over and over again saying that these rules are about any "qualified investment entity." When only CERTAIN people are supposed to use a particular part of the law, the law SAYS so, and it does it blatantly and repeatedly. No one needs to guess or theorize about who is supposed to use Section 860. No insinuation or extrapolation, no inference or deduction is required. Now let's see where Section 861 is located, and what it says: --------------------- TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE Subtitle A - Income Taxes CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES Subchapter N - Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States PART I - DETERMINATION OF SOURCES OF INCOME [*] Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States (a) Gross income from sources within United States... (b) Taxable income from sources within United States... [* If you are looking in some printing of the tax code other than the USCS printing, you will find a different, INCORRECT title for Part I. For the complete explanation, download my free "Taxable Income" report from the link near the bottom of the front page of the http://www.theft-by-deception.com web site.] --------------------- Nothing in Section 861 gives the slightest hint that the rules therein are only for certain people, or that most of us shouldn't be looking there. Likewise, where the indexes of the tax code point to 861 regarding domestic income, under topics such as "gross income," "taxable income," "deductions," and "sources of income," there is nothing even remotely suggesting only CERTAIN people should look there. Here is how the cumulative bulletin sums up what 861 and following are all about: “Rules are prescribed for determination of GROSS INCOME and TAXABLE INCOME derived from sources WITHIN and WITHOUT the United States, and for the allocation of income derived partly from sources within the United States and partly without the United States or within United States possessions. §§ 1.861-1 through 1.864. (Secs 861-864; ‘54 Code.)” [Treasury Decision 6258] The first section of regulations under 861 (26 CFR 1.861-1) elaborates on the concept, explaining that 861(a) and related regs are for determining domestic "gross income," and 861(b) and related regs are for determining domestic "taxable income." You can find that section here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/26cfr1i_06.html So where, in all that, does it say that only CERTAIN people, in CERTAIN situations, should be looking there to determine their "taxable income from sources within the United States"? When a part of the law only applies to certain people, the law SAYS that, unambiguously and repeatedly, as shown above. The real problem is not in the law books; it is in peoples' heads. When twelve jurors, for example, heard that IRS bureaucrats "TOLD" me I wasn't supposed to look at 861 (after telling me they weren't familiar with that part of the law, and weren't really sure what it was about), the jurors couldn't imagine how I could still disagree. "Oh, those rules are only for people who..." At my trial, several government folk asserted that, though none of them backed up their claims with the smallest shred of evidence. Where does the law SAY, or even HINT, that I'm not supposed to use those rules? It doesn't. But they can simply ASSERT that it is so, and the average sheep will take their word for it. What I find most discouraging at this point is how little evidence and logic matter to people (including a lot of people in the "tax honesty movement"). The "argument" over the 861 evidence, if it can even be called that, has become utterly absurd. One side quotes what the law SAYS, while the other side asserts that it MEANS something completely different from what it says. It's like trying to argue with someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5. If they are so far gone that they literally refuse to see what's right in front of them, what's the point? Being right, and having piles of evidence to prove it, doesn't matter much when the general public is not only incapable of critical thought, but unwilling to even look at evidence which might threaten their comfortable assumptions. I'll keep putting the evidence out there for the few who actually want it, but at this point I don't think any amount of concrete evidence--whether about the federal income tax or anything else--can penetrate the thick, empty heads of the indoctrinated masses. I wish I had something more upbeat to end this message with, but at the moment I don't. Maybe in a few hundred years, the truth-tellers of today will be vindicated (a la Galileo). Or maybe not. Maybe in a few hundred years, people will go back to thinking that the sun goes around the earth, because "authority" says so. Sincerely, Larken Rose www.larkenrose.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Charset: UTF8 Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkbdpHAACgkQGmVFo/iGj301TwP8D2yAmmasizmgO9BAnKg25dfwl2dW CaomgK7/UHMm7/Z0mFLoFm+GGDjG3OwSc5eH4U8g2ZCAYqsu/T+/pfjwntLj1LmC7eNJ dbRhl+JNulSyLjRAk+7HuJ6rxLLj9tyCjuUQbMurtUK2jWAPpLfFHCe6UgyO6KbOcNFl n18BaZE= =9k5q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Click for information on obtaining a VA loan. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4d9CswFAUaCiQfvh2BEljK5W3uJn7gkFgWqvv7DyGY5FGKw3/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to 861-on@mail-list.com To contact the list owner, send your message to 861-list-owner@mail-list.com