reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Note; This is actually a reply to the O.P.
I understand what you are getting at with your traffic code analogy sir, (is it all right to call you sir? I feel a little silly referring to you as
hotpinkurinalmint. What is that, some kind of inside lawyers joke?), however, I am less concerned with traffic violations as whatever liability I may
have under those laws are not nearly as terrifying as tax law. So, to stay on point; you are telling me that I am correct about what exactly, that
income hasn't been defined by the Code? Has income been defined?
It is odd to me that when I ask these pertinent questions people always accuse me of playing semantics. I find this to be unfair as I am not the one
who brought up "taxable income" and I am not blaming you as you are merely citing the code, I understand that. However, if income is the subject of
the tax, then why the hell wouldn't the code just say that instead of playing semantics and laying a tax upon "taxable income"? Do you understand?
In my strong defense, it is not I who is playing semantics, and it is wholly disingenuous of any judge to give me grief for asking for clarification
on what specific terms mean.
I am speaking this frankly to you out of respect in deference to the effort and respect you have shown me, and I would never, of course speak that way
to a judge, but it seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that I am entitled to know what is meant by specific terms
within a statute or code or ordinance that seeks to make me liable for a tax or a law. Isn't this true?
To assuage any reservations you are having about my questions, as you did seem a bit defensive when I first began asking these questions, please know
that I understand that Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation and that the income tax law seems to me to be wholly Constitutional if
it is being enforced in the proper manner. It is not the law that strikes me as being unconstitutional, but as you said, you thought I wanted to know
about the mechanics such as how it is enforced, and I do.
I am not asking you for legal advice nor am I attempting to develop any legal strategy. The simple truth is I don't understand the law, and when I
am told that I must sign under penalty of perjury that all the above is true and correct, then I have the right to know that all the above is true and
correct, do I not?
[edit on 5-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]