IRS - File Taxes Early for Your Gift

[soonercruiser]

Be sure to file your 2010 tax return by the "end" of February, in order to receive your complimentary gift - the IRS pencil sharpener.

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Other/IRS%20Gift.jpg

[OUthunder]

Heh, that's about right, and no lube provided.

[soonerscuba]

You guys do realize getting mad at the IRS is like getting mad at cops for speed limits, right?

[soonercruiser]

Who's mad at the IRS?
Tax time is when my savings program kicks in.
The wifie's a "saver"; I'm the "spender"!
:D
(Big "smilies" mean = "joke")
Duh!

[Veritas]

You guys do realize getting mad at the IRS is like getting mad at cops for speed limits, right?
You've never been been audited, have you.

[OULenexaman]

You've never been been audited, have you. my thoughts exactly...:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[yermom]

when i've had to deal with the IRS they have been really nice, actually

[Penguin]

Is money gained from a bank robbery considered taxable income?

[Veritas]

when i've had to deal with the IRS they have been really nice, actually
Well of course, everyone knows if you want to **** someone you've got to be nice.

[soonerscuba]

You've never been been audited, have you.I have, and I didn't say cops weren't dicks, it's just they didn't write the traffic code.

[soonercruiser]

You've never been been audited, have you.

What!!!???
You guys mad at the IRS?
:eek:

[OULenexaman]

What!!!???
You guys mad at the IRS?
:eek: yep....30K reasons...

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Yes bank robbery money is taxable. It is what they got Al Capone on...he believed you couldn't be taxed on illegal income...but yes you can.

[SoonerKnight]

You guys do realize getting mad at the IRS is like getting mad at cops for speed limits, right?

No, it is not! Tax time sucks and it used to be that taxes on personal income was considered a head tax! OH WAIT! Congress never actually passed a personal income tax law the IRS did. Look it up very interesting stuff. Yes I pay my taxes just saying!

[AlbqSooner]

Yes bank robbery money is taxable. It is what they got Al Capone on...he believed you couldn't be taxed on illegal income...but yes you can.

Interestingly there are a couple of cases that dealt with this many years ago. The Court ruled that a loan was not income for tax purposes. The Court reasoned that it was not considered income for tax purposes because there was a duty to repay. Not long after that a guy claimed that certain of his money was not income. He said that since he stole the money there was a duty to repay. Hence, according to his logic, and the Court's precedent, the money was not income for tax purposes. The court ruled against him and "revisited" its previous ruling on the taxability of a loan. The court said that the reason a loan was not income for tax purposes is that it was commercially infeasible.

Dang, some of the stuff that I recall from 35 years ago boggles the mind.:D

[soonerscuba]

No, it is not! Tax time sucks and it used to be that taxes on personal income was considered a head tax! OH WAIT! Congress never actually passed a personal income tax law the IRS did. Look it up very interesting stuff. Yes I pay my taxes just saying!I'm not quite sure I follow, are you suggesting that Congress didn't pass income tax laws and create the IRS to enforce and give reg rulings?

[GrapevineSooner]

I just wish the IRS would talk to the Social Security Administration sometimes and vice versa, you know?

[OUMallen]

Yes bank robbery money is taxable. It is what they got Al Capone on...he believed you couldn't be taxed on illegal income...but yes you can.

Exactly. Moreover, it is a specific rule that states illegal income is taxable, not jsut a policy. It's in the tax code.

[cccasooner2]

Is money gained from a bank robbery considered taxable income?

Only if you declare it, I believe. Consult a professional tax advisor to be sure.

[soonercruiser]

Only if you declare it, I believe. Consult a professional tax advisor to be sure.

You mean like bragging about it at a gay bar???? :D

[SoonerKnight]

I'm not quite sure I follow, are you suggesting that Congress didn't pass income tax laws and create the IRS to enforce and give reg rulings?

Congress created the IRS yes!! Congress created tax laws yes. Personal income tax laws are not on the books. The IRS created those.The courts have flipped back and forth on this issue. I think it was an interview with Ron Paul that he was asked if there were no laws made by the Congress that we have to pay income tax then why do we and he replied "When the government has all the guns and power you have little choice."

Like I said I pay my taxes. I'm just mentioning something that is true.

[SoonerKnight]

Listen to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKePl2gW_3M

[Penguin]

The courts have flipped back and forth on this issue.


I've never seen judges flipping and flopping over throwing a tax cheat in prison.


I'm no law expert, but I'm sure that when the IRS was created, there may have been a tiny clause saying that Congress delegates its power to collect taxes to the IRS.

[soonerscuba]

Congress created the IRS yes!! Congress created tax laws yes. Personal income tax laws are not on the books. The IRS created those.The courts have flipped back and forth on this issue. I think it was an interview with Ron Paul that he was asked if there were no laws made by the Congress that we have to pay income tax then why do we and he replied "When the government has all the guns and power you have little choice."

Like I said I pay my taxes. I'm just mentioning something that is true.Are you familiar with title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code which was created via legislation? It very plainly codifies personal income taxes, further authorship matters very little in regards to legislation as the very act of legislation brings laws into existence. The courts upheld this law, are you suggesting that the IRS made up the personal income tax and Congress and decades of legal review simply ignored it?

[cccasooner2]

You mean like bragging about it at a gay bar???? :D

I wouldn't recommend it, I think this is a don't axe don't tell situation. Those gays are pretty "friendly" with IRS agents.

[SoonerKnight]

Are you familiar with title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code which was created via legislation? It very plainly codifies personal income taxes, further authorship matters very little in regards to legislation as the very act of legislation brings laws into existence. The courts upheld this law, are you suggesting that the IRS made up the personal income tax and Congress and decades of legal review simply ignored it?


I'm saying that IRS TITLE 26 TAx Code is a bunch of BS!!!

[SoonerKnight]

I've never seen judges flipping and flopping over throwing a tax cheat in prison.


I'm no law expert, but I'm sure that when the IRS was created, there may have been a tiny clause saying that Congress delegates its power to collect taxes to the IRS.


The meaning of the 16th amendment!! They have flipped back and forth!

[SoonerKnight]

I've never seen judges flipping and flopping over throwing a tax cheat in prison.


I'm no law expert, but I'm sure that when the IRS was created, there may have been a tiny clause saying that Congress delegates its power to collect taxes to the IRS.

Case law

The federal courts' interpretations of the Sixteenth Amendment have changed considerably over time and there have been many disputes about the applicability of the amendment.
[edit] The Brushaber case

In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that (1) the Sixteenth Amendment removes the Pollock requirement that certain income taxes (such as taxes on income "derived from real property" that were the subject of the Pollock decision), be apportioned among the states according to population;[31] (2) the federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law; (3) the federal income tax statute does not violate the Article I, Section 8's uniformity clause (relating to the requirement that excises, also known as indirect taxes, be imposed with geographical uniformity).
[edit] The Kerbaugh-Empire Co. case

In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), the Supreme Court, through Justice Pierce Butler, stated:

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [cites omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.

[edit] The Glenshaw Glass case

In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'gross income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealth — whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions — are all within the definition of income, unless the Congress makes a specific exemption, as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party,[32] gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances,[33] and certain scholarships.[34]
[edit] Income taxation of wages, etc.

The courts have ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."[35]
[edit] The Penn Mutual case

Although the Sixteenth Amendment is often cited as the "source" of the Congressional power to tax incomes, at least one court has reiterated the point made in Brushaber and other cases that the Sixteenth Amendment itself did not grant the Congress the power to tax incomes (a power the Congress has had since 1789), but only removed the requirement, if any, that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations. In the Penn Mutual Indemnity case, the United States Tax Court stated:

In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation [ . . . ] and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.[36]

In that same Penn Mutual Indemnity case, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed, stating:

It did not take a constitutional amendment to entitle the United States to impose an income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 601 (1895), only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier. Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes.

It is not necessary to uphold the validity of the tax imposed by the United States that the tax itself bear an accurate label. Indeed, the tax upon the distillation of spirits, imposed very early by federal authority, now reads and has read in terms of a tax upon the spirits themselves, yet the validity of this imposition has been upheld for a very great many years.

It could well be argued that the tax involved here [an income tax] is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax; therefore, it need not be apportioned. We do not think it profitable, however, to make the label as precise as that required under the Food and Drug Act. Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.[37]

[edit] The Murphy case

On December 22, 2006, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated[38] its unanimous August 2006 opinion in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and United States.[39] In an unrelated matter, the court had also granted the government's motion to dismiss Murphy's suit against the "Internal Revenue Service." Under federal sovereign immunity, a taxpayer may sue the federal government, but not a government agency, officer, or employee (with few exceptions). The court stated:

Insofar as the Congress has waived sovereign immunity with respect to suits for tax refunds under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), that provision specifically contemplates only actions against the 'United States.' Therefore, we hold the IRS, unlike the United States, may not be sued eo nomine in this case.

An exception to federal sovereign immunity is in the United States Tax Court, where a taxpayer may sue the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[40] The original three judge panel then agreed to rehear the case itself. In its original decision, the Court had ruled that 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) was unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment to the extent that the statute purported to tax, as income, a recovery for a non-physical personal injury for mental distress and loss of reputation not received in lieu of taxable income such as lost wages or earnings.

Because the August 2006 opinion was vacated, the full court did not hear the case en banc.

On July 3, 2007, the Court (through the original three-judge panel) ruled (1) that the taxpayer's compensation was received on account of a non-physical injury or sickness; (2) that gross income under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code[41] does include compensatory damages for non-physical injuries, even if the award is not an "accession to wealth," (3) that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries is an indirect tax, regardless of whether the recovery is restoration of "human capital," and therefore the tax does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, that capitations or other direct taxes must be laid among the states only in proportion to the population; (4) that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, that all duties, imposts and excises be uniform throughout the United States; (5) that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Internal Revenue Service may not be sued in its own name.[42]

The Court stated that "[a]lthough the 'Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact,' [ . . . ] it can label a thing income and tax it, so long as it acts within its constitutional authority, which includes not only the Sixteenth Amendment but also Article I, Sections 8 and 9."[43] The court ruled that Ms. Murphy was not entitled to the tax refund she claimed, and that the personal injury award she received was "within the reach of the congressional power to tax under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution" -- even if the award was "not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment".[44] See also the Penn Mutual case cited above.

On April 21, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeals decision.[45]