User talk:BB69

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DES (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

My responses
All of my responses to these comments can be found on the users talk pages. bb69 17:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)BB69

Comments
You have repeatedly been warned to stop your vandalism of articles on Wikipedia when you came here using other IPs. Please stop. You are welcome to contribute real edits to Wikipedia but all vandalism done by you will be reverted and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue. — Mateo SA | talk 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The user previously vandalized under the IPs 206.111.181.109 | talk and 216.27.181.235 | talk. — Mateo SA | talk 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Income tax
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Gareth Hughes 17:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * BB69, your edits to Income tax, though only a few words long, do not represent the mainstream view of the constitutionality of the income tax in the US after more than 85 years of court cases. I can understand your desire to incorporate your point of view but we need to find a way to do it that clearly states that it is a theory and that it has been considered and rejected by the courts repeatedly.  See Talk:Income_tax.  The article's talk page already contains a thorough discussion of the issue and I suggest that after reading it in its entirety you propose a sentence or two, on the talk page, that you would propose to insert into the article.  Short of that, I assume that editors viewing the article will continue to simply remove your added wording as POV.  Feel free to contact me directly, but I would suggest that any substantive discussion be on the talk page of the article. -- DS1953 talk 18:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is to present topics from a neutral point of view. This means articles must represent each outside view fairly and proportionally, but not present any single view as true. Your edits appear to violate this principle and introduce bias to the article. Please use the talk page to discuss controversial edits&mdash;if you do not, it is likely that your edits will simply be removed by others. You should also be aware that repeatedly inserting something breaks the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Ignoring this may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. -- DS1953 talk 01:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many controversial topics in Wikipedia and with most of them there is a way to present both views. The problem in this particular case may be your phrasing. You say, for example, it's a fact that the income tax is unconstitutional. That is not a fact, that is an argument or an opinion. To say that the law is constitutional is arguably also an opinion. To say, however, that the courts have ruled that the income tax is constitutional is a fact - you can look it up and verify it. Its only their opinion that the law is constitutional and its only your opinion that it is not. The fact is, however, that the constitution gives the judiciary the power to determine whether something is constitutional or not, so their opinion counts more than yours or mine. The courts may change their opinion on this matter some day, but until they do it is important that someone reading the article on income tax understands clearly how the law is interpreted today. If you state two opinions and don't make it clear that the legislative (i.e., Congress), judicial and executive (the Treasury and the IRS) branches all agree that the law is constitutional, you are crafting a misleading article. No one is trying to prevent you from stating a position against the income tax (and in fact there is an entire article on tax protesters in Wikipedia), but the statements must be accurate and neutral. We are not here to change the interpretation of the law, just to explain it as it is today. We can explain the arguments against the prevailing interpretation as long as it is accurately done. I hope this clarifies my thoughts on the issue. -- DS1953 talk 03:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --Gareth Hughes 11:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Tax protester
Dear BB69:

The citations to IRC section 6020 and related provisions added on 23 Nov 2005 are matters of law. Your repeated attempts to remove these citations are understandable given your apparent antipathy with respect to the U.S. tax system, but are not appropriate on the page in question. As stated above by another user, no one is trying to prevent you from stating a position against the income tax. However, the statutes, regs and case cited are on point, as a matter of law, regardless of what you or I personally feel about the income tax. Your edit comments are also revealing. For example, you state that you removed citations because "none specifically cite IRS agents are the secretary [ . . . ]". Unfortunately there is no rule of law that requires a valid delegation to "specifically cite IRS agents are the secretary" and, in any case, raising such an objection with respect to the statutes and regs themselves is 'way off base.' The verbiage ("They must produce it. If not they have no authority.") also betrays your frustration, but is not legally sound. You state that the cite to the case (Craig) was removed "since case doesn't imply IRS has delegation, i.e., pocket commission." This statement is an example of what some legal scholars call "legally frivolous tax protester rhetoric." Further, the Court in Craig specifically ruled that the IRS Revenue Agent did have a valid delegation under the statutes and reg cited. So, your objection is without merit. In any case, removing cites to primary legal authority that is directly on point is not appropriate. I assume from the structure and the substance of your arguments that you are probably neither a tax lawyer nor a certified public accountant (hey, maybe that's a good thing). However, please recognize that these areas of Wikipedia are regularly perused by such creatures -- who have studied tax protest arguments in depth.

Good luck, Stare 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Income tax in the United States
The following material was moved out of the main article as it violates the Wikipedia policy against non-neutral point of view. The material also includes several statements of opinion that do not accurately reflect the cited material, as explained below.

BB69 states: The "1040 Instructions" book has no reference to a requirement to file a return except on its "Privacy Act" page, where it says: "Our legal right to ask for information is IRC Sections 6001, 6011 and 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for. Your response is mandatory under these sections."

Famspear Response: Incorrect. For example, on page 75 of the year 2004 Instructions for Form 1040, under the Privacy Act notice in column 2, there are other references to the requirement to file a return: “If you do not file a return … you may be charged penalties and be subject to criminal prosecution.” By the way, IRS forms and instructions are just that: forms and instructions. They are not the law, and as a general rule forms and instructions are not legally required to include specific references to particular statutes, regulations, or case law, etc.

BB69 states: If you are "liable for" a tax you must file a return; but there is not any Code Section that makes one "liable for" an income tax. If none exists, you must assume you have no such liability or consequent obligation to file.

Famspear Response: No Code section making one liable for an income tax? Incorrect. For example, Internal Revenue Code section 1 specifically imposes the tax on the “taxable income” of individuals. Code section 11 imposes the tax on the taxable income of corporations. “Taxable income” in turn is defined in section 63. “Gross income” is defined in section 61. Exclusions from income are provided in various sections, as are deductions from gross income to arrive at “taxable income.”

BB69 states: The text of the three Code Sections that Notice identifies :

CS 6001 "every person liable for any tax imposed by this title... shall... make such returns..." and "the Secretary... may require any person, by notice served..." to file a return. However as above, there isn't any Section that makes one liable for an income tax and you must be served any notice by the Secretary.

Famspear Response: No section that makes one liable? Incorrect. Again, Internal Revenue Code section 1 specifically imposes the tax for individuals. Code section 11 imposes the tax for corporations. Further, if BB69 is saying that any notice must be served by the Secretary of the Treasury personally to be liable for income tax, that is false, and that is not what section 6001 says. The word “may” is not the word “must.” Here is the full text of section 6001:


 * “Section 6001. Notice or Regulations Requiring Records, Statements, and Special Returns. Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).”

Nothing in section 6001 says the Secretary “must” serve a notice. Indeed, the obligations imposed under that section are imposed on taxpayers and employers, not on the Secretary of the Treasury. And BB69 cites no other provision anywhere in the Constitution, a statute, a regulation, or any related case law to the effect that a person must be “served any notice by the Secretary” to be liable for Federal income tax as, indeed, there is no such provision.

BB69 states: CS 6011 "when required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title... shall make a return..." but the same comment applies; there is no law to make one liable.

Famspear Response: No law to make one liable? Again, incorrect, for the same reasons listed above. Further, the statement is blatant non-neutral POV.

BB69 states: CS 6012 "returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by... every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount..." The code Section that defines the term "gross income" is not defined. CS 61, at first glance does seem to define "gross income". However, it does so only in terms of another term, "income" itself, thus: "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business..." In order to understand how "gross income" is defined, it must therefore be shown the Code Section that defines "income." There is none.

Famspear Response: “It must be shown the Code Section that defines income?” Incorrect. Under the U.S. legal system, there is no law that requires that the definition of a term (“gross income”) not include a form or part of that term (“income”). BB69 is thinking of something his or her eighth grade English teacher said about proper forms of definitions. Here, we are talking about law. Further, there is no legal requirement that a legal term be defined in the statutes at all. Many terms are defined by statute (that’s a good thing), but the vast majority of words in all Federal and state statutes are not defined at all. This is the case with statutes in general, not just the tax statutes.

BB69 states: One other facet of CS 61: while it doesn't define "income" (and therefore doesn't actually define "gross income" either) it does tell us one thing about "income": it is an entity that is "derived from sources" such as those listed.

Famspear response: Incorrect: Section 61 does not define “income” but it does define “gross income.” BB69 is correct, however, to the extent that gross income can be derived from the kinds or sources of income listed in section 61. However, nothing in section 61 limits “gross income” to just the kinds or sources of income listed there.

BB69 states: For instance, receiving a pension, and making some profits from an unincorporated business However "income" is said there to be "derived from" pensions and "gross income derived from business" Clearly, nothing at all can ever be derived from itself. The Code must define "income", and how each of those derivations works.

Famspear Response: Incorrect. Again, there is no requirement that the Code define “income” (although it does define “gross income” and “adjusted gross income” and “taxable income,” etc.), and there is no requirement that the Code define “how each of those derivations works.” Again, this may come as a shock to some people, but under the U.S. legal system there is no “legal requirement” that any particular term be defined in any statute, regulation, or court decision merely because it’s found in a statute, regulation or court decision. Indeed most words in most statutes (not just the tax statutes) are not defined (although more of them should be), but as a general rule that has nothing to do with legal validity of the statute. There is such a thing as a statute being “unconstitutionally vague” but no Federal income tax statute has been ruled unconstitutionally vague.

BB69 states: The opinion of the Supreme Court in US v Ballard in 1976:

"The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code."

Famspear Response: Basically correct! The word “income” itself (as opposed to “gross income”) is not defined in section 61. But BB69 cites no legal authority for the position that the word “income” must be defined in the statute – as, indeed, there is no such rule, as explained above.

BB69 states: You look to the courts for a definition and even the Supreme Court to define such a critically important term, would seem to be making law, which of course courts cannot do - Article 1 of the US Constitution reserves that power to Congress alone.

Famspear Response: False: As few non-lawyers realize, and as every law student learns in the first semester of law school, U.S. courts literally make new law every day that courts are in session, and have always done so since the founding of the nation and from before -- when we were thirteen English colonies. Article I does reserve the legislative power to Congress. However, the U.S. legal system is based on something called the English common law system, which is primarily (though not exclusively) judge-made law. For example, the U.S. Constitution specifically requires U.S. courts to follow the common law when re-examining jury findings (see the Seventh Amendment). This has always been a major paradox of the U.S. legal system: One says that in theory the legislature makes the law, the executive enforces the law, and the judiciary only interprets the law. Judges should exercise “judicial restraint.” And that axiom is correct -- but only up to a point. A large part of U.S. law is and always has been “case law” (“judge-made law”). Indeed the U.S. legal system has a whole set of rules that judges use to determine how much “law making” or “legislating from the bench” they will do in given situations. As a society the U.S. populace is still arguing about it today – it’s in the news each time the President nominates someone to serve on the Supreme Court, for example. At one time in England most of the criminal law, property law, and contract law, etc., was judge-made law. Tort law (personal injury and property damages) was also judge-made – even before it was called “tort law.” The English judges at one time were allowed to make up the criminal law more or less “as they went along.” Imagine how that felt if you were a defendant! That is why the U.S. Constitution includes a “no ex post facto law” clause. Of course, there were always some statutes, even back to the 1500s or before, but the so-called “Codification Movement” (to put more of the basic U.S. judge-made law into the form of statutes enacted by legislatures) did not really get going in earnest until the 1800s. One of the best definitions of law ever propounded was, if I recall, from Professor John Neibel, former Dean of the College of Law at the University of Houston, whose working definition of “law” was roughly as follows (I am paraphrasing from memory): “The law is what a given judge does to you on a given day in a given court room.”

BB69 states: However, one such definition was made, by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Merchants' Loan & Trust Co v Smietanka: "...there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word ['income'] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."

The 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act placed an excise tax upon corporate profits.

Merchants' Loan says that "income" is defined as "corporate profit" and that certainly makes sense of Code Section 61, for such profits can indeed be "derived from" the sources there listed. Not being a corporation, however, people have no such income; and so (on the basis of that Supreme Court opinion) CS 6012 doesn't require one to file a tax return.

Famspear Response: False, and extremely misleading. As explained below, in the case in question, the Court used among other things a statute called The Corporation Excise Tax Act (which the Court pointed out was not even an income tax law) to help determine the scope of the term “income” for purposes of the 1916 Revenue Act – which was an income tax law. Nowhere did the Court rule that “income” under the 1916 Revenue Act consisted only of “corporate profits.” In fact, corporate profits, corporate revenues, corporate expenses, etc., were not even discussed. The term “corporate profit” does not even appear in the Court’s decision. Not only did the Court not rule that people who are not corporations “have no such income,” the issue was not even presented to the Court in the case. The Court’s decision is no legal basis for any argument that section 6012 of the current code does not require one to file a return – another issue that was not even present in the case.

The case was Merchants’ Loan & Trust Company, as Trustee of the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error v. Julius F. Smietanka, formerly United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of the State of Illinois, 255 U.S. 509, 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) par. 42 (1921). (I am using the full case name here rather than the case name in “USOC” or “Harvard Blue Book” format to help illustrate for persons not familiar with legal citations that the company called “Merchants’ Loan & Trust Company” was involved only as the trustee of the estate, not as a “corporate” taxpayer on its own behalf.) The case involved a gain realized by the “Estate of Arthur Ryerson” on a sale of corporate stock (of a corporation called “Joseph T. Ryerson & Son”) taxable to the estate, not the definition or taxation of “corporate profits” of “Merchants’ Loan” or “Joseph T. Ryerson & Son” or any other corporation. The estate had paid an income tax and the trustee, on behalf of the estate, was suing for a refund of that tax. One of the theories the trustee argued was that that the gain on the stock sale was not "income" to the estate under the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case dealt with a predecessor to Internal Revenue Code section 61, which was section 2(a) of a Revenue Act enacted in 1916. Under that statute, “income” included "gains, profits and income derived from . . . sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property . . . or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever."

Regarding the word “income,” the Supreme Court stated: “The question is one of definition and the answer to it may be found in recent decisions of this Court.” The Court went on to say: “The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 [. . .], was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word "income" was so necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as "The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." [ . . . ] (citations omitted). The Court said: “The use made of this definition of income in the decision of case arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, and under the Income Tax Acts is, we think decisive of the case before us.” The Court further said: “It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar [i.e., the Merchants’ Loan case] if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Company v. Lowe [. . . ], where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. [ . . . T]here would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.” The Court went on: “In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. [ . . . W]e continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment [. . .] it is palpable that it was a "gain or profit" [. . .] and thereby became that "realized gain" which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income within the meaning of the constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress [. . .]” In short, the Court ruled that the gain on the sale of corporate stock by an estate was taxable as part of the “income” of that estate under the tax statute and the Sixteenth Amendment. Famspear 04:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Another correction from Famspear By the way, the reference to the Ballard case above is also incorrect. The decision in the Ballard case was made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, not by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The citation is: United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 918 (1976). Famspear 05:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(from Famspear)
 * Dear BB69

Thank you for your counter-responses (which you posted on my User talk page) to my comments about your arguments (i.e., the arguments I removed from the article on “Income tax in the United States”). On my own User talk page, I have taken the liberty of inserting bracketed headings above each of your counter-responses. This way, it will be easier for other Wikipedia users to follow the train of discussion.

First, for whatever it’s worth, I get the impression that your postings to (and edits of) the articles on income tax are motivated by a desire to persuade others that the U.S. income tax law is invalid, etc. However, as you can see the formal “articles” area of Wikipedia might not be most effective place to present this information. Why not take some time and collect all your thoughts about U.S. income tax, organize them, and put them all on your own Wikipedia User page? You might be less likely to be challenged on a variety of grounds if your materials are presented in your own User page.

Second, when I posted my responses to your arguments (the arguments that I removed) my primary motivation was to show what I identified as the defects in your arguments, not to persuade you that Famspear is correct and BB69 is incorrect. It may therefore not be fruitful for you and I to get into a “back and forth” argument about the defects or lack of defects in your arguments – which I assume are based on beliefs you hold strongly. I’m not here to persuade you that I am right and you are wrong. I suspect that some other users of Wikipedia would agree that a primary function of an encyclopedia, online or otherwise, is to teach, to inform, to educate, and not to persuade.

You cannot defeat the U.S. income tax system by posting the kinds of materials you have been posting in the articles areas of Wikipedia. I am going to take a wild guess here and go out on a limb and say that you cannot really persuade other Wikipedia users that the Federal income tax law is as you believe it to be – there are too many other users who can and will defeat you in any battle of “persuasion.” Again, I posit that the function of persuasion would be more appropriately confined to your user page.

Again, thanks for your interest in the U.S. tax law. Famspear 21:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, can someone show me how to find a users talk page. I found Famspears talk page because I saw he posted it somewhere before, but now can find no such link.


 * Famspear,

Thank you for writing back. I look forward to viewing the brackets you have placed to make it easy to see responses. If found valuable, I may want to do that to my own page.

To cover your assertion that my point is to persuade people that the Income Tax law is invalid, that is incorrect. I am showing people the that Income Tax law as written is correct, but that it is misapplied. Unless you can show me differently, I don't see how creating a seperate page on Income tax to assert my points would be of much use since the idea is that when someone puts in "Income Tax" or "Income Tax in the United States" that they get my information, unless I can re-direct people from the current article using those same keywords.

I understand what you mean about trying to show defects in my argument in your response. That is how I expect discussions to go. As you saw, (on your talk page)I have show the defects in your arguments to mine. Again, I agree, this is not about BB69 being right and Famspear being wrong, but merely stating the facts and showing sources. I'm going to take the chance that I can convince other Wikipedia users that what I am showing will lead them to the answer that the Income tax is misapplied no matter what some Judges rule. So far, there have been no users who have been able to defeat me in any of my material and I suspect it will continue to be so since the material I am citing is law, not opinion. I am sure, once the users get over their feeling of being mis-led all these years, that they will admit to it. The bottom line is that we all see this and do something about it. I hope that many people will and some attorneys will as well. It has already started and it's not going to stop. Again, putting up my own user page with my information misses the point of having someone get to it who is curious about "Income Tax" and "Income Tax in the United States" when it doesn't get to my page.

You can defeat the US Income tax system using the information I post as a start and I have done it myself for five years. I am only one of thousands that are already doing this legally.

Again, I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that your belief is that Income Taxes are applied correctly. I am only posting from what I read and from what I read it is very clear that my position is correct. Thank you. bb69 18:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)BB69

[The following inserted by Famspear on Thurs Dec 8, 2005 about 10:15 pm Central Time USA:]

[from BB69 to Famspear:]

Thank you for writing back. I look forward to viewing the brackets you have placed to make it easy to see responses. If found valuable, I may want to do that to my own page.

To cover your assertion that my point is to persuade people that the Income Tax law is invalid, that is incorrect. I am showing people the that Income Tax law as written is correct, but that it is misapplied.

[Famspear responds]


 * “Trying to show people” that the income tax law is “misapplied” is not appropriate in the Wikipedia article on the income tax. This is an encyclopedia, and the main articles area is not a discussion forum or a place to “try to show people” something like that. Regardless of whether you call it an attempt to "persuade people” or “trying to show people,” it’s not appropriate in the main articles area.

[BB69 says:] Unless you can show me differently, I don't see how creating a seperate [separate] page on Income tax to assert my points would be of much use since the idea is that when someone puts in "Income Tax" or "Income Tax in the United States" that they get my information, unless I can re-direct people from the current article using those same keywords.

[Famspear responds:]
 * Again, the articles area of Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to “assert your points.” You are inappropriately trying to use Wikipedia as a cyberspace soapbox to “try to show people” that the income tax law is “misapplied” as you put it. The “idea” is not supposed to be that when someone puts in “Income Tax”, etc., they “get your information.”

[BB69 says:] I understand what you mean about trying to show defects in my argument in your response. That is how I expect discussions to go. As you saw, (on your talk page)I have show [shown] the defects in your arguments to mine.

[Famspear responds:]
 * No, sorry, I did not see any “defects” in my “argument.”

[BB69 continues:] Again, I agree, this is not about BB69 being right and Famspear being wrong, but merely stating the facts and showing sources. I'm going to take the chance that I can convince other Wikipedia users that what I am showing will lead them to the answer that the Income tax is misapplied no matter what some Judges rule.

[Famspear responds:]
 * The articles area of Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for you “take the chance” to “convince” other users that what you are “showing” will “lead them to the answer.” Trying to “convince” other users is the same as trying to persuade them that your belief about the income tax is correct, which is the same as “trying to show people” that the income tax is “misapplied.” This is not appropriate in Wikipedia.

[BB69 continues:] So far, there have been no users who have been able to defeat me in any of my material and I suspect it will continue to be so since the material I am citing is law, not opinion.

[Famspear responds:]
 * Sorry, but I doubt if any users or editors lend any credibility at all to your material. Virtually everything you have said about the income tax has been “defeated,” and this will “continue to be so” since your materials are not “law” but only your own opinion.

[BB69 says:] I am sure, once the users get over their feeling of being mis-led all these years, that they will admit to it. The bottom line is that we all see this and do something about it. I hope that many people will and some attorneys will as well. It has already started and it's not going to stop.

[Famspear responds:]
 * No, but I understand that you “feel” that you have been “misled.” In psychology, there is a term called “transference.” One working definition of transference is “the inappropriate repetition, in the present, of some aspect of a relationship that was important in the subject’s past.” I invite you to do some reading on the term “transference.” Also, you certainly have been misled by the tax protester nonsense you have been reading.

[BB69 writes:] Again, putting up my own user page with my information misses the point of having someone get to it who is curious about "Income Tax" and "Income Tax in the United States" when it doesn't get to my page.

[Famspear responds:]
 * The point is that it’s inappropriate for you to be trying to use Wikipedia to have “someone get to” your “information” about the income tax. You can certainly set up your own web site for this kind of thing. Wikipedia is not the place to do that.

[BB69 says:] You can defeat the US Income tax system using the information I post as a start and I have done it myself for five years. I am only one of thousands that are already doing this legally.

[Famspear responds:]
 * Wikipedia articles are not the appropriate place to put information to help people try to “defeat the US Income tax system” as you put it. And nobody is doing it legally – not in the ways you are thinking. If you think you are doing it legally, why not contact the local office of the Internal Revenue Service, ask for the Special Agent in charge of the Criminal Investigation unit, and give him or her all the facts of your case?

[BB69 says:] Again, I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that your belief is that Income Taxes are applied correctly. I am only posting from what I read and from what I read it is very clear that my position is correct.

[Famspear responds:]
 * Aren't you pleased we're able to perform this exercise without getting into a “back and forth” argument about the defects or lack of defects in your arguments? This discussion was about the fact that you are using the wrong "forum" to make your arguments. By the way, whatever it is you've been reading, you might want to consider throwing it away. Famspear 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Tax issues
Hi, here's how the game works here, you have to provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Continuing to remove material and add your own without citing sources to back your position is unnacceptable. You are welcome to try to improve the article, but you are not doing that, and you will be blocked from editing if you continue. - Taxman Talk 18:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you're willing to find something reliable that supports your position, don't edit articles. Your position violates common sense and common practice, and remarkable claims require remarkable evidence to back them up. You are more than welcome to try to actually back up your position, but more of the same kind of tactics as you have used so far are unnacceptable. I will pursue dispute resolution if needed, but I'd rather you just change your behavior to editing in a manner that improves articles. - Taxman Talk 18:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see Requests for comment/BB69. - Taxman Talk 20:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Items removed by Famspear from Income tax in the United States
From Famspear. The following items were removed from the article, as explained below.

[BB69 says:] 1978: Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21. Established that wages and income are NOT equivalent as far as taxes on income are concerned.

[Famspear responds:]


 * Wrong, and misleading. In the case of Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court did not “establish” that “wages” and “income” are “not equivalent.” (Indeed, the two have never been “equivalent,” as “income” includes more than just “wages.” That was not the issue decided in the case.) Instead, the Court ruled that under Internal Revenue Code section 3401, an employer who reimbursed employees for lunch expenses during company travel was not required to withhold federal income tax on those reimbursements. The lunch reimbursements did not qualify as "wages" for purposes of the section 3401(a) withholding requirements. The Supreme Court did not rule that wages are not taxable.

[BB69 says:] "Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation." Conner v US 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969) "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

[Famspear responds:]


 * The citation for this case is Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971). The three-sentence quote beginning with the words “There is a clear distinction between [ . . . ]” and ending with the words “[ . . . ] the mere compensation for labor” is not even from the Conner case, and no other citation for the quote was provided by BB69. The quote is therefore removed. See information on Oliver v. Halstead in separate section.


 * The court in Conner was presented with the question of whether or not the taxpayers (husband and wife) improperly excluded from their gross income an amount received from an insurance company as reimbursement for the rental payments paid by the taxpayers (plus some reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses) after their own home burned down. The court ruled that the taxpayers had not realized a gain, and that therefore the reimbursement was not taxable. There was no ruling in the case about wages being taxable or non-taxable.


 * Regarding the reference in Conner to “compensation,” what the court actually stated was as follows:


 * If one of plaintiffs [i.e., one of the taxpayers] suffered a personal injury covered by insurance, the receipts of that insurance would be specifically excludable [from gross income] under section 104(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The same would hold true under section 104(a)(2) if plaintiffs had been compensated for personal injury not covered by insurance. While it is recognized that these statutory exclusions apply only to personal injuries, the same logic on which they are based would control the issue of the judicial exclusion from gross income of the payments made to the plaintiffs here. Congress has taxed income, not compensation.
 * BB69 is falsely implying that the court in Conner ruled that compensation in the form of wages is not taxable. Compensation in the form of wages was not even an issue in the case. This case was about compensation for the fire loss of a home in the form of a reimbursement for the cost to rent a place to stay.

Famspear 03:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

More information on items removed by Famspear from Income tax in the United States
From Famspear to BB69:

Regarding this quote which was right after the citation to the Conner case:


 * "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

This quote is apparently from Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992, 86 S.E.2d 859 (1955). This case is cited over and over by tax protesters on the internet. Unfortunately, this is not even a Federal income tax case. The issue of taxability of wages for Federal income tax purposes was neither presented to the court nor decided by the court. This was a Virginia Supreme Court decision. “The law” in question was not even a tax law. It was the Virginia nonprofit corporation law. Famspear 02:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter, it still applies even if that's not what the case was based on. User:BB69 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)BB69

Your user page
I removed a link to a deleted page as part of a clean up after the afd. Please feel free to revert me. Spartaz Humbug! 20:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)