Re: The government refuses to answer a simple yes or no question.

Dale Eastman wrote:

> Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
>
> > Dale Eastman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Dale Eastman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Brian Rookard wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Dale Eastman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Richard Macdonald wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>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?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Was that a yes, or a no?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Such questions cannot be properly answered as yes/no.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Either a taxpayer uses those sections or they don't.
> >>>>>>Sure looks like yes or no WILL properly answer that particular question.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Describe the taxpayer (where does he live, where does he earn his
> >>>>>income, etc.) ...
> >>>>
> >>>>Obviously everybody posting on the pro 861 side of the arguments must be
> >>>>foreign nationals. Malloy and Rubin from California, Maffia from
> >>>>Washington state, Evans from Pennsylvania, Shockly from Mississippi,
> >>>>Myself from Wisconsin.... Yep, Foreign nationals all.
> >>>>
> >>>>And of course the part of the question that tells us nothing what so
> >>>>ever about the income, "to determine my taxable domestic income?"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Define "taxable domestic income".  It doesn't appear in the law or
> >>>regulations.  (I'm afraid I missed that the last time I answered the
> >>>first two questions.)
> >>
> >>Ed Senter Jr. It's not even debatable anymore.
> >>http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/eiasmf.html
> >
> >
> > Quoting that page:
> >
> > The loquacious and astute Ed "Master Wordsmith" Senter fulminated the following 
> > words.
> >
> > "TAXABLE INCOME does not mean INCOME THAT IS TAXABLE."
> >
> > Since TAXABLE INCOME does not mean INCOME THAT IS TAXABLE,
> > according to  Mr. Ed's rapier command of the semantics and syntax of the English 
> > language,
> > one can only deduce that,
> >
> > TAXABLE INCOME does mean income that is NOT TAXABLE.
> >
> > End quote.
> >
> > Is totally bogus, and if you don't know it, I don't know how I can
> > convince you.  On the other hand, it goes well with your
> >
> > "Gross income can include excluded income".
> > "Wages are gross income"
> > Therefore:
> > "Wages can be excluded income."
> >
> > argument.
>
> Yeah, whatever.
>
> I won't debate it anymore. I'm just going to keep supplying that link
> whenever you or senter try to confuse the issue of "taxable" adj.
> "income" noun. with "taxable income" legal def.

Are you trying to say they're the same?

You've already lost the argument.  (For what it's worth -- if
there is "taxable income" (legal def), but tax credits exceed the
tax that would be due, there's no tax (n.) due, so there's no
"taxable adj. income n.".