I find it intriguing that the courts and pro-IRS sycophants will readily talk about how frivolous the following questions are, and how they reveal a total lack of legal understanding on the part of the questioner, but then stubbornly refuse to answer any of them. If the questions are so frivolous and simplistic, then just answer them! Sure, it may be frivolous and simplistic for me to ask you what 2+2 is, but for you to answer that Leibniz answered that question back in 1680 does not tell either a) the answer is 4; or b) you know the answer is 4. In fact, an answer like that makes me rather suspicious that you have no idea what the answer is. That, or you are terrified of what the implications of saying “4” will be.
1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 (in addition to any other pertinent sections) to determine my taxable domestic income?
2) If some people should not use those sections to determine their taxable domestic income, please show where the law says who should or should not use those sections for that.
3) If a U.S. citizen receives all his income from working within the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show his income to be taxable?
4) Should one use 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether his “items� of income (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?
5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the income of the average American not on that list?
6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law� (i.e. not subject to the income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?
And what is the response from the IRS to these six questions? Read it for yourself and see if you consider it a reasonable and credible answer. I submit that the following parody is a reasonable summary of the current situation:
Prosecutor: “Where were you on October 7th, at 5:20 p.m.?”
Defendant: “I didn’t kill Fred, and your accusation is frivolous.”
Prosecutor: “Were you at Fred’s house that day?”
Defendant: “I didn’t kill Fred, and your accusation is frivolous.”
Prosecutor: “Did you know Fred?”
Defendant: “I didn’t kill Fred, and your accusation is frivolous.”
Prosecutor: “Is this your knife?”
Defendant: “I didn’t kill Fred, and your accusation is frivolous.”
Prosecutor: “Can you explain why your fingerprints are on the knife?”
Defendant: “I didn’t kill Fred, and your accusation is frivolous.”
Let’s just say that on the day that the IRS goes on trial before the American people, I don’t expect it to survive long.