Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
One argument is that the definitions of "state" and "United States" in most subparts and the general definition in the Internal Revenue Code are what other amending code sections [clarification needed] [1] [2] refer to as "a special definition of 'state'", where the statutory definitions include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and some other territories, without mentioning the 50 states.
Other protesters have argued that the term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code or the Constitution, and that the tax law should therefore be invalid. These protesters claim that without clear definitions, Chapter 1 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations suggests IRS agents must rely on voluntary compliance.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument, essentially ruling that under federal income tax law all the future income earned by Mr. Earl was taxable to him at the time he earned the income, even though he had already assigned part of the income to his wife, and regardless of the validity of the assignment agreement under state law.
Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of conspiracy arguments asserting that Congress, the courts and various agencies within the federal government—primarily the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—are involved in a deception deliberately designed to procure from individuals or entities their wealth or profits in contravention of law.
Country codes; e.g., "Switzerland" can indicate the letters CH; ICAO spelling alphabet: where Mike signifies M and Romeo R; Conventional abbreviations for US cities and states: for example, "New York" can indicate NY and "California" CA or CAL. The abbreviation is not always a short form of the word used in the clue. For example:
(2) to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall include a reference to the provisions of law formerly known as the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Thus, the 1954 Code was renamed the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by section 2 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The 1986 Act contained substantial amendments, but no formal re-codification.
The 1988 Taxpayer Bill of rights gave the Ombudsman additional authority to intervene and overturn IRS decisions in certain cases. [7] The position of Taxpayer Advocate was created under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, an act of the United States Congress which became law on July 30, 1996.
Former IRS officials and tax experts say this type of behavior would provide a "legitimate basis" for additional scrutiny. Ohio State University law professor Donald Tobin said: "While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked." [50]