Posted 1:15 AM by Creditwrench

Dear List Subscriber,

This is a follow-up to my prior message, about how we need not overestimate the knowledge and intelligence of the IRS. First, let me say that I did NOT mean that they should not be feared. The IRS is like a rabid dog: stupid, out of control, vicious for no reason, and unable to be reasoned with. Just because it's not intelligent does not mean it can't do harm.

When it comes to the war of information, the IRS is toast. They don't even know what their OWN position is, much less how to argue it. ("Don't look at those sections, because we said so" is hardly a respectable position.)
However, I DO believe that for 80 years, there have been a very few inside the government who DID know the truth, who DID conspire to deceive and defraud the public, and who WERE pretty dang smart. However, I am now convinced that those "masterminds," seeing that the fraud is about to fall, already ran for the hills, leaving the fraud in the hand of clueless bureaucrats and government lawyers who don't even know what they're defending. (They'll find out soon enough.)

But since I'm on the subject, I thought I'd congratulate the government lawyers who DID know the truth, on their very creative deception. It was rather brilliant... in a horrendously evil sort of way. I wanted to give a few examples, because I think they can help people understand the fraud.
-----------------------------------------
Let's take one example, and look at it from a few perspectives, to see what the most likely explanation is:
The regulations defining "gross income" used to make it quite clear that in addition to the types of income exempted from income taxation by STATUTE, certain OTHER kinds of income were exempt by the Constitution itself. The last page at this link confirms that:
1956 regs

(See also 26 CFR § 1.312-6(b) of the current regulations.)
So that gives us three distinct categories of income:
1) Income exempt by statute.
2) Income excluded because of the Constitution.
3) Income that is subject to the tax.

Somebody WROTE the regulation shown at the link above. Did they KNOW what was Constitutionally exempt, or were they just making stuff up, without even knowing what they meant? To say that some income may be EXCLUDED from "gross income" because of the Constitution is a pretty straight-forward concept. Would someone write that if they didn't KNOW what that might mean? Better yet, would they write that if they didn't know if ANY income was Constitutionally exempt? No.

Whoever wrote that regulations knew damn well what it meant. That's why he also wrote the OTHER section on the page linked to above, which says that U.S. citizens and corporations MUST include income they receive from FOREIGN commerce in their "gross income." Again, from the writer's perspective, did they just FORGET (for about 40 years in a row) to say that the DOMESTIC income of Americans is taxable? Or did they leave it off because purely domestic income is NOT taxable?

This is classic lawyer-think. What did it LITERALLY say, and what would the reader be likely to ASSUME that it MEANT?
The method of obfuscation used in the fraud is brilliant, in that if you look at the law, starting with the ASSUMPTION that your domestic income is taxable, nothing directly contradicts that. It's easy to assume that that thing about the Constitution is about someone else. If YOU don't know what is Constitutionally exempt, and you don't see the regulations TELLING you, it's easy to have your brain just miss that point entirely. "I don't know what that's about, but it can't be me."

Likewise, when you see the regulations saying that you MUST report your FOREIGN income, without saying anything about your DOMESTIC income, it is natural and easy to ASSUME that it meant "in addition to their domestic income." In short, it was worded to tell the truth, but in a way that would allow most readers to ASSUME something incorrect that was not stated.

The same structure appears over and over again, in 80 YEARS of statutes and regulations. Why did Section 217 of the 1921 code not say that in the case of foreigners, and ALL U.S. citizens, compensation for services performed in the U.S. is taxable? It only talked about foreigners and citizens with POSSESSIONS income. That makes it so easy for the average Joe to glance at the section, think "that's not about me," and completely miss the significance of the section.

The same is true in numerous sections over the years. The most convoluted example is the current 26 CFR § 1.861-8. On one hand, sections all over the place say in no uncertain terms to use 861(b) and 1.861-8 to determine one's taxable domestic income (see 26 CFR §§ 1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.863-1(c), 1.862-1(b), etc.). But when you GET there, the section basically says that it is about determining taxable income from "specific sources." If you eventually find out what that means (see 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)), you'll see it's all about INTERNATIONAL stuff.
So how does that make sense? Should you use those sections, or not? The regulations do NOT say that only CERTAIN people should use those sections to determine their taxable domestic income. But when you GET there, it's only about international commerce. How can that make sense?

Again, it's perfect lawyer obfuscation. They direct you where you should be, then specifically tell you what IS taxable (international stuff), but carefully do NOT say anything about YOUR income. They don't come right out and say it's exempt, nor do they come right out and say it's taxable. Could anyone write over 30 pages of regulations for the specific purpose of describing how to determine taxable domestic income, and ACCIDENTALLY fail to mention either way whether the income of 100,000,000 Americans is taxable or not??? Not only that, but did they "forget" to specify that in 80 YEARS of statutes and regulations? Anyone want to tell me that that's NOT suspicious??
If the law MEANT that my income was taxable, it would SAY it. Section 1.861-8 is analogous to this:
-----------------------------------
Prosecutor: "Tell the jury whether you killed Fred."
Defendant: "Okay, refer to this answer to determine if I killed Fred. For purposes of this answer, the term 'kill' shall be construed to include stabbing, strangling, or bludgeoning someone to death. The term 'stabbing' shall include the manual pushing of a sharp object into the victim in such a manner as to cause external bleeding, but such term shall not include the manual pushing of an object, sharp or otherwise, that causes internal but not external bleeding. For purposes of this section, the term 'specific victim' shall mean an individual whose first name is Fred. This statement concerns the killing (or lack thereof) of the specific victim. I did not kill (as defined above) the specific victim."
Prosecutor: "Okay, but did you SHOOT Fred?"

Defendant: "Your question is frivolous, and now I'll have to fine you $500."
-----------------------------------
How many words does someone have to use, WITHOUT stating the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACT, before you get suspicious? If the guy didn't kill Fred, he would have just said "no." And if my domestic income was taxable, SOMETHING in the last 80 YEARS of statutes and regulations having to do with DETERMINING TAXABLE DOMESTIC INCOME would have specifically SAID SO.

Because the fraud was DESIGNED to confuse people, and was at the same time DESIGNED to avoid giving any obviously "confession," it's easy for people to get confused and frustrated. But ask yourself this: if "conventional wisdom" is CORRECT, why is it so dang hard to PROVE IT using the law? Why doesn't the IRS even KNOW what its OWN position is?

For example...
1) If it's not MY income that's Constitutionally exempt, where do the regulations say what IS Constitutionally exempt? (Why should I assume it's NOT mine if no one seems to know exactly what it means?)
2) If my DOMESTIC income is taxable, why don't the regulations specifically SAY that (right after they specifically say that any FOREIGN income I receive is taxable)?
3) If I'm not supposed to use 861 and its regulations to determine my taxable domestic income, why do all those citations not SAY that? If they MEAN that only CERTAIN people should look there, why do they say the EXACT OPPOSITE all over the place?

(That's a heck of a "typo": half a dozen sections, all in effect for at least 25 YEARS (most in effect for 47 years), all of which "accidentally" said that I should look there, when they didn't really mean it. Huh?)
4) If 1.861-8 means that my income IS taxable, why doesn't it come right out and SAY that? It very clearly says that the domestic income of FOREIGNERS is taxable. And it specifically talks about other kinds of international commerce. And 80 years of predecessors do the same. The regulation-writers just "forgot"--for 80 YEARS IN A ROW--to tell tens of millions of Americans that their income is taxable?? Yeah, that sounds real likely. (On top of that, they haven't bothered to "fix" that supposed typo in the last decade, after the 861 evidence has become a huge problem for them.)

The list could go on and on. Are we really supposed to believe that they ACCIDENTALLY forgot to mention--for over 80 YEARS IN A ROW--that most of us owe the tax? Come on. The reason the law doesn't just SAY that my income is taxable is because it ISN'T TRUE. And the reason the law doesn't just SAY that my income is exempt is because LAWYERS AND POLITICIANS LIKE POWER, even if they have to use FRAUD to get it.
Sincerely,

Larken Rose
larken@taxableincome.net
Theft by deception.com