I have noticed that some of you have answered questions on title 26
USC (tax code). But not one of you has answered correctly. How many of
you are cpa’s or have a back ground in tax law. Not one of you has
even tried to look up the fact of liability. In order to be taxed on
any of the codes you must first be liable for the tax imposed in title
26 USC. This is where you must start. You cannot just start at the
code section them selves. Just like the answer on section 121. Not one
of you even checked on weather or not this person was liable for the
tax or not. So your answer is incorrect and unfinished.

So in short I would like to know if anyone of you could answer this
question. The question is! Is there any code that makes a Citizen of
USA liable for the taxes imposed in title 26 USC and it’s
corresponding regulations? Now remember to read the codes first before
you answer.

Maddy33,

As someone who has paid a lot of taxes over a long period of time,
your question is of more than mere academic interest.  Of course we
have to pay taxes...don't we???  Most of us believe so, but there are
those who intelligently argue otherwise.

First the code.  As detailed at:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html

Section 1 of Part I of Subchapter A of Chapter 1 of Subtitle A of
Title 26, which is the Internal Revenue Code, lays out the details of
liability for paying taxes:


TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > Sec. 1. 

Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS 

Sec. 1. - Tax imposed 

In particular, Section 1 includes language that reads:  "There is
hereby imposed on the taxable income of..." and then goes on to
describe just what is imposed in the way of taxes for different
categories of individuals, including:
-Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses 
-Heads of households 
-Unmarried individuals 
-Married individuals filing separate returns 
-Estates and trusts 

Case closed, right?  Well not so fast.  Like all matters of law, the
language of Title 26 is subject to different interpretations, as is
the rest of the US Code and the Constitution itself.  A vocal movement
of citizens have argued that no real liability is imposed by Title 26,
or by any other laws of the United States.  Some of these arguments
can be found at:


http://www.williamcooper.com/notliabl.htm
We are NOT liable!

http://www.anti-irs.com/on-liability.htm
On Liability

So, are we liable or not?  Bottom line in cases like these that
revolve around interpretation of existing law is that the federal
courts have the final word on the issue (until and unless Congress
decides to step in by creating new law).  As far as I can discern, no
court has accepted the argument that individuals are not liable. 
Until a court see fit to overturn conventional interpretation, it
seems to me we are legally liable to continue with the obligation (no
matter how unpleasant) of paying our taxes.

For me, that will inlcude taxes on the income from answering this
question, assuming you find my answer acceptable.  If not,  please let
me know what additional information you'd like, and I'll try my best
to provide it.

Thanks.

You are so very wrong. But a good try. You indeed follow the norm of
the public misconception. Further you did not even look up the
regulations on sec. 1 if you look up code section 1.1-1 of title 26CFR
you see this

 Sec. 1.1-1  Income tax on individuals.

    (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax
on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the 
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),
on the income of a nonresident alien individual. For optional tax in
the
case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income of less than $10,000
(less
than $5,000 for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1970) see 
section 3. The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by 
subtracting the allowable deductions from gross income).

(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In 
general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by
the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the
United States.

This is one of the sections the IRS claims to make you liable for the
income tax. The other one they claim is section 61. Section 61 of
title 26 USC looks like this(

Sec. 61. Gross income defined
-STATUTE-
(a)	General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle,
gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including
(but not limited to) the following items:).

Then it goes on to show a list.

 (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe
benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
But this list is made up of items not sources.
And best of all the CFR says what this list is for take a look at
this.

Sec. 1.61-1  Gross income.
(a) General definition. Gross income means all income from whatever 
source derived, unless excluded by law. And there is more. 
Section 61 lists the more common items of gross income for purposes of
illustration. That’s right for the purposes of illustration. Meaning
to show you what might be gross income not what is.

Remember the word sources. It has been mentioned three time so maybe
there’s something to that?
And there is. There is a code section on sources. Title 26USC 861-865
and it’s corresponding regulations found in title 26CFR 1.861-1.865.
Pay close attention to 1.861-1/1.861-8T you will find what I am
talking about. But you must read it very carefully.

And for the matter of interpretations if the law were so vague then it
would be void for vagueness that my friend is the law. In fact it is
your bill of rights. The law has to be writen in a matter so that the
common man can under stand it.

Also in the same bill of rights ignorance of the law is no excuse.
That works both ways just because you don’t know the law does not mean
it does or does not exist. You as a Citizen must know how the law
applies to you.

lets put it this way if I can look this stuff up and read it anyone
can. Because I am a carpenter not a CPA or A law expert.

26USC does not establish a liability for the income tax, as for
example code sections 4401, 5005, 5703 do with respect to wagering,
alcohol, and tobacco taxes..
  The word "income" is not defined in in the Internal Revenue Code,
U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 therefore the Supreme Court defined
it in Merchant's Loan and Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 at pgs
518 & 519, that court held 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 of 1909.
 "Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific
definition if "income" it imports, as used here..the idea of gain or
increase arising from "coporate activities," Doyle v. Mitchell, 247
U.S. 179.
 "Certainly the term income has no other meaning in the 1913 Act than
in that of 1909 (see; Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S.
406, pgs 409-413), and...we assume that there is no difference in its
meaning as used in the two acts" Southern Pacific Co. v. John Z. Lowe
Jr., 247 U.S. 330, 335; Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170;
Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527; U.S. v.Supplee-Biddle Hardware Co.,
265 U.S. 189; U.S. v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156; Miles v. Safe Deposit &
T. Co., 259 U.S. 247; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161; Edwards v. Cuba R.
Co., 268 U.S. 628; Burnett v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103, 108,(1932); Lucas
v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111.
  In addition, there is no mention in code section 61 of the current
IR code that wages or salaries or compensation for personal services
are taxable as income as when these items appeared and were included
in sec 22 of the 1939 code. Obviously Congress, by eliminating such
references in the 1954 code, did not intend that the wages and/or
earnings of private citizens would fall within the meaning of "income"
as "defined" in code section 61 of the 1954 code.

Actually, a number of us have back ground in tax law and the code
section them selves; hence I believe that we have checked on weather
or not particular provisions are supported by ample authoritative
support, be it statutory or case law.

Your challenge at whether "anyone of you could answer this" is,
indeed, a challenge.

The question is!

Other sources that counter maddy33's implication and decoy_'s
assertion that individuals are NOT subject to income tax under Title
26 include http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#section61 , including
the following paragraph:

The United States Supreme Court has not hesitated to interpret the
word "income," and has stated that Congress intended to impose the
income tax on "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and
over which the taxpayers have complete dominion," with no restriction
as to "source." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431
(1955).

This being more recent  than any of the decisions quoted by decoy_-ga,
it seems likely that, to the extent those decisions ARE applicable to
the question at hand, they have been overturned.

As for the answer's web sites, they both purport to have been served
on the IRS and on William Clinton, respectively, but there is no legal
record of such service, so, logically, one would presume that they are
lying, at least in that respect.

Nice work Decoy you must be a friend of Irwin?

This to arubin's comment that the cases sighted by decoy are
overturned. If they are overturned then it would say so at the end of
each case. I cannot find any such thing mentioned in any of the cases.
could you show me were it saids so. thank you.