Stimulus Payment

I'm doing my taxes.  Yes, I do them myself which may cause conern when I say that I admit to not being the sharpest tool in the shed.  But I have a question:

I earned money in 2007 from actually working for it.  Uncle Sam said that because I did this, because I had "income", he took part of it.

In 2008, he gave me part of my money back and called it a "stimulus payment".

Now, he says that this payment (of my own money) is income and wants to tax it.

WHAT?????  Are you kidding me?

I made money, he taxed it and then returned some of it to me only to tax it again?

Am I missing something?

BeeAlone BeeAlone
41-45, F
5 Responses Feb 10, 2009

Hi BeeAlone: Can you prove that you (& about 309,000,000 others--estimated USA population) are 'subject to' (meaning 'liable for') a or any federal-level revenue tax? How do you know if you are 'subject to' a federal-level tax? What is the 'subject of' the tax associated with every April 15th? Is the 'subject of' the so-called 'income' tax 1) people, 2) property (such as real estate, one's income, one's automobile), or 3) activities (meaning business events, incidents, occasions, even the earning of income)? Tell me & everyone else what is the 'subject of' the alleged tax. Until you investigate & find out exactly what is the 'subject of' the what-kind-of-tax, you will never find out if you are 'subject to' ('liable for') a tax.
Interested in finding out? If so, here is your homework assignment. Begin by reading & studying the USConstitution's Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1; Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3; Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 4; the 16th Amendment. To understand how the 16th Amendment applies to you & anyone else, remember that the word 'on' means 'measured by', 'inconsideration of', 'in respect to', 'in reference to', 'in regard to', 'with regard to'.
Onward to several USSupreme Court cases. Read & study Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (before the court two times, 1894 & 1895), Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911), Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co. (1916), Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916), Peck & Co. v. Lowe (1918), Eisner v. Macomber (1920). Next to several USCourts of Appeals cases such as Higley v. CIR [Commissioner of Internal Revenue], Houston Street Corp. v. CIR, Economy Plumbing & Heating v. US.
In the Congressional Research Service of Mar 27th, 1943, page 2580, is a sentence saying that income is not the 'subject of' the so-called tax.
Now for the Internal Revenue Code (IRC, also 26 USC). Go to 26 USC 7701(a)(14) & 26 USC 1313(b). These 2 sections define the term "taxpayer". Note especially in 26 USC 1313(b) the term 'applicable revenue law'. There it is, BeeAlone, the KEY to 26 USC. Is there a "taxpayer" as defined if there is NO 'applicable revenue law' to be found in 26 USC? Are you shocked?
Ready for more fun? How about writing to your Congressperson & USSenators asking them to find for you the 'applicable revenue law'? See what kind of evasive & offpoint reply you get, if any. Ask a or more tax attorneys to find for you the 'appliable revenue law'. See what kind of reply you receive.
BeeAlone, how about having the attitude of being from Missouri & realizing that you have to read & comprehend? If you have questions, write me.
Sincerely,
Buffalodave

lol!

I will do my best not to die in 2010. lol.

Good one! Yes, i felt the exact same way.

Thanks CPAguy! I was starting to really get peeved!<br />
<br />
Maybe the great Hopey-Changey will give me a "gift" of some more of my money this year!