OFFICIAL RESPONSE from Congresspersons, Senators, IRS, or other...

"Our working equation at the IRS is simple: service plus enforcement equals compliance."
-- Mark W. Everson, Form 1040 instructions, 2004, page 2

Service

+

Enforcement

=

Compliance

Government officials were sent a letter with a few questions (like this letter mailed to Senator Ed Kennedy, who was knighted by Queen of England). Here are some of the responses...

* If you have a letter and response you'd like to share here Contact Us.

Senator Jeff Bingaman:

March 30, 2005 Thank you for contacting me regarding the proper method to use to determine taxable income. You raised many important questions, and I would recommend obtaining a copy of the Internal Revenue Service publication "The Truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments." This 54-page document can be obtained on the web at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolousarguments-3-14-2005.pdf or by calling the IRS at 1-800-TAX-FORM. I hope this information helps. Again, thank you for writing. Please continue to inform me of issues important to you and your community. Sincerely, Jeff Bingaman United States Senator

Sen. Jeff Bingaman 703 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-5521

If Senator Bingaman thinks that "many important questions" were raised, why are they referred to as Frivolous Arguments? Important questions need answers, but maybe these are too important.

Senator Bingaman (or his staff) did not answer a single question, or even mention anything about the missing tax regulations from the official copy on the GPO website or when their website would be fixed [this was pre-2004 regs, but year 2007 is all there. Use HTTrack]. And the document he refers to also does not answer any of the questions. Such documents are not regulations and so are not binding. And, they do not provide the rules for how to determine taxable income.

The United States tax regs prescribe the term "how to determine taxable income" in only one regulation. One of the questions asked of these Congressmen and Senators is - why should we not use the only instructions written for determining taxable income. Unfortunately, Senator Bingaman's response is typical, he doesn't answer questions.

RESPONSE

Senator Pete Domenici:

April 8, 2005 Thank you very much for contacting me regarding tax rules and regulations. I'm glad your brought this matter to my attention. I have written to the Internal Revenue Service and have asked them to address the issues you raised in your letter. They are looking into the situation, and I have asked them to respond directly to you. In addition, I will contact you if I receive and additional information relating to this subject. Thank you again for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Pete V. Domenici United States Senator

Sen. Pete Domenici 328 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-6621

IRS RESPONSE (via Senator Domenici)

We received this response from the Acting-Acting Field Director of Accounts Management, in Philadelphia. [Since she is the Acting-Acting Director, the employee turnover rate at the IRS must be high.]

[Our comments are placed in brackets, and blue.]

May 13, 2005

I am sorry for the delay in responding to your letter dated February 28, 2005, to Senator Pete V. Domenici. You asked about the federal income tax.

Responding to letters like yours is difficult because they usually reflect personal opinions and frustrations with the tax system that we cannot address. However, I can provide the following general information, which I hope is helpful.

[The questions we asked were specific, not personal opinions, but about accurate and measurable results in the CFR, showing the tax regs contradict IRS actions.]

The federal tax law is in Title 26 of the U.S. Code and is reproduced separately as the Internal Revenue Code (the Code). The Code does not define the term "income."

[We didn't ask that question. Search the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations for "excluded income" and "eliminated income", then give your own educated response.]

Gross income, not "income," is the starting point for determining an individual's federal income tax liability. The term "gross income" is defined in Section 61 of the Code.

[Not true, "taxable income" is the starting point...

1. "imposed on the taxable income" - USC Sec. 1
2. "the tax imposed is upon taxable income" - CFR Sec. 1
3. "Except as otherwise provided" - USC Sec. 61
4. (a) "all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law."
   (b) "more common items ... are ... excluded from gross income entirely ... To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations ... provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61" - CFR Sec. 61
   
   So, "notwithstanding (in spite of) Sec. 61", we need to know what items are taxable income, and what are excluded income, and, in addition, we need to know how to determine tax.

]

 

Section 61 includes in gross income "all income from whatever source derived." As the Supreme Court stated in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429 (1955), "Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts..." Nothing in Sections 861 through 865 of the Code limits the gross income subject to U.S. taxation to foreign-source income.

[1. True, 2. True, 3. Not true...

1. True, gross income is "all income... whatever source" - but gross is gross, and the "tax imposed is upon taxable income."
2. True, but the Supreme Court used the term "taxable receipts," not "taxable income." Regardless, their quotes still fail to explain - how, who, when, where, or what is taxed, and what is excluded.
3. Not true, see "income that is not... exempt" (i.e. what is taxed, the items) - CFR Sec. 861.8T(d)(2)(iii), then see the Principles of Statutory Construction (and compare these).

]

 

The rules of Sections 861 through 865 help determine whether income is from sources within or outside the U.S., which is relevant, for example, in determining whether a U.S. citizen or resident may claim a credit for foreign taxes paid. See Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (Ct.Cl. 1982)(the rules further state that "the determination of where income is derived or 'sourced' is generally of no moment to either U.S. citizens or U.S. corporations, for such persons are subject to tax under I.R.C. Section 1 and I.R.C. Section 11, respectively, on their worldwide income" and that "likewise, the income of a resident alien individual is taxed under I.R.C. Section 1 without regard to source").

[Senators, Congresspersons and IRS people, please notice...

1. "how to determine taxable income" - CFR Sec. 861 (this instruction occurs only in 861).
2. A US citizen is expected to follow the tax rules. According to the manual, the IRS has been ordered to follow the exact same rules ... "the Regulations are the official... interpretation of the I.R.C." (Internal Revenue Manual, 4.10.7.2.3.1), "The Service is bound by the regulations." (IRM 4.10.7.2.3.4).
3. "more common items ... are ... excluded from gross income entirely... To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations... provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61 and the regulations thereunder." - 26 CFR Sec. 61

]

 

The source rules do not exclude from U.S. taxation income people in the U.S. earn from sources within the U.S., Williams v.Commissioner, 114T.C. 136 (2000) [rejecting the claim that income was not subject to tax because it was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. Section 1.861-8(a)]; Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40 (1995) (rejecting the claim that Section 861 lists the only sources of income relevant for purposes of Section 61).

[Not true, the source rules of 861 actually do exclude "more common items" in the U.S.

1. There are two lists. One list has the taxable sources - CFR 861-8(f)(1), and the other list has the taxable items - 861-8T(d)(2)(iii). Data mining confirms the results.
2. According to the Principles of Statutory Construction, if an item is not on a list, it has been excluded from the statutes coverage or application.
3. Indeed, it is Sec. 61 itself, which tells us "more common items" are excluded entirely.
4. T.C. is Tax Court. It does not apply to any other taxpayer, thus meaningless, and clearly contradicting the specific language of the regulations.

]

 

An individual is liable for income tax under Subtitle A of the Code, Chapter 1, Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability. Part 1, Section 1, imposes a tax on the taxable income of every individual. Whether an individual has taxable income is determined under Chapter 1, Subchapter B - Computation of Taxable Income. Part 1, Section 63, defines "taxable income," generally, as gross income minus the deductions allowed by Chapter 1.

[... All true, but liable for what? As you said, the USC only provides definitions "generally", which is why the USC refers taxpayers to the regulations for the "specific sources".

1. Tax regulations are written, prescribing "specific guidance," and including both, "the sources of income for purposes of the income tax", and the items of income that are "excluded from gross income entirely".
2. Regulations specifically address - how, who, when, where, and what is taxed.
3. Notice again that "The Service is bound by the regulations." (IRM 4.10.7.2.3.4) as are all taxpayers.

]

 

Every person liable for any tax imposed by the Code shall make a return (Sections 6001 and 6011 of the Code). In addition, Section 6012 of the Code provides that every individual whose gross income equals or exceeds certain amounts shall make a federal income tax return. "Shall" as used in Sections 6001, 6011, and 6012, means "must"; "must" means "to be required to." The instructions for Form 1040 under the heading "Filing Requirements" explain who must file a return.

[...

• "must file" (203 file(s) found)
• "shall file" (133 file(s) found)
• "1040" and "must file" (10 file(s) found)
• "1040" and "shall file" (9 file(s) found)

"Shall" as used in Section 861, means "must"; "must" means "required"... (also resulting in not required)...

1. 'taxable income from sources within the United States shall consist of" - 861
2. "the following rules shall apply to... income that is... excluded" - 861
3. "In allocating deductions... exempt income (as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section) shall be taken into account." - 861
4. Form 1040 instructions only require that "you must report... income... from... outside the United States", but not "inside" (use the PDF of Form 1040 instructions from www.irs.gov to see what you must do).

]

 

The positions you raised have been the subject of numerous court decisions, which held these positions to be contrary to existing law. See for example, United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340 (7th Cir. 1993), United States v. Jugim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992). In addition, the courts have often imposed sanctions on taxpayers who raise these types of arguments in litigation. For example, in Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986), the court stated,

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. Certain individuals have convinced theselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them. [Thanks for the info showing that the government may not prohibit beliefs, we hope this is obeyed.]

See also, Conner v. Commissioner, 770 F.2nd 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985)(the argument that wages are not income "has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions."); Crain v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) ("We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.")

[... And, so the fraud continues. No one is surprised if any particular organized crime group, large or small, denies fraud. The only thing contrary to existing law is the IRS.

1. "Items of gross income... and deductions... shall be allocated or apportioned to sources within or without the United States, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary ... The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income." - USC Sec. 863.
2. What citation number "provides specific treatment for any item", more specific than 26-CFR Sec. 861 and the following:
   
   "the tax imposed is upon taxable income - CFR Sec. 1 (and rule #1)
   "how to determine tax" - CFR 861
   "how to determine taxable income" - CFR 861
   "the sources of income for purposes of the income tax" - CFR 861
   "eliminated income" - CFR 861
   "eliminated items" - CFR 861
   "excluded income" - CFR 861
   "excluded from gross income entirely" - CFR 61 (use PDF files, or GPO eCFR search function)
   "the following items are not (excluded)" - CFR 861
   "specific sources" - CFR 861
   "computation of taxable income" - CFR 861
   "determining taxable income of the taxpayer" - CFR 861
   "determining taxable income from specific sources" - CFR 861
   "determine taxable income" - CFR 861
   "income that is exempt" - CFR 861
   "income that is not" - CFR 861

]

 

Again, I hope this information is helpful. If we can further assist you, please call Mrs. Rosemary Wallace, Identification Number 0530002090, at (215) 516-7606. This number is not toll-free.

Sincerely,
Mary Jane McCabe for / Nancy J. Aiello
Acting Field Director, Accounts Management
Philadelphia

cc: The Honorable Pete V. Domenici

[... No, that was very un-helpful. Our letter specifically asked that we not recieve such bulletins, canned form-letters, or court cases. We want our questions answered, and to have the IRS provide a citation that is more specific than Sec. 861.]

 

 

RESPONSE

Congresswoman Heather Wilson:

April 20, 2005 Thank you for your letter with questions about taxes. I appreciate hearing from you. I'm afraid I cannot answer your questions precisely as you request in your letter. While Congress sets up the rates and outlines of the tax system, the IRS acts as a rulemaking body and sets up the specific language which determines tax liability. I have forwarded your questions to Mark Everson, the IRS Commissioner with the attached letter. When I get a response I will forward it to you. You may also wish to discuss your particular situation and regulatory questions with a Certified Public Accountant. Sites like www.861.com [she may have meant www.861.info] seek to eliminate income taxes and claim that income taxes are illegal. I do not agree with their view. There have been court cases challenging the legitimacy of the 16th Amendment that created the income tax and the legality of the Federal Government's taxation of income has been upheld. Again, thank you for contacting me. Please continue to contact me about issues that are important to you. Sincerely, Heather Wilson Member of Congress

Congresswoman Heather Wilson 318 Cannon House Bldg Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-6316

Thank you, Senators and Congresspeople, but we've already written to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson. He is even a CC recipient to the letters we sent you, as shown under the CC heading.

"...top quality service by helping them understand" -- IRS mission statement - http://www.irs.gov Mark Everson is too busy to help us "understand", which is why we are now asking you the same question... Why are tax laws, rules, and instructions contradicting IRS actions?   We're waiting for his letter. The only statement available from IRS Commissioner Mark Everson: "Our working equation at the IRS is simple: service plus enforcement equals compliance." -- Mark W. Everson, 1040 Form instructions, 2004

IRS Commissioner, Mark "Compliance" Everson 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20224

Service seems to be missing (and so does their mission of "helping them understand"), but compliance is certain. Answers cannot be obtained from the IRS, Congressmen, Senators, or the Government Printing Office. Apparently, no government official is responsible or cares about rules and what the rules say.

If accurate, what is this years weapons order worth?

Why does the IRS, or the EPA, or the Army Corp of Engineers need guns?

Interestingly, we did find the following speech by Congressman John J. Duncan Jr. of Tennessee on June 19. 2001. Now missing from http://www.house.gov/duncan/2002/speeches/speech061901.htm

The speech was removed from Duncan's website. So we linked to the Google cache of the same webpage, and then Google removed it within two days. It was here. Google also removed their Find-pages-that-link-to-the-page page, when there were quite a few other sites that linked to Duncan's speech.

Fortunately, Duncan's speech was made before congress, and so can be found here:
-- LOOK for: House >> June 19, 2001 >> #15-IRS
http://thomas.loc.gov/r107/r107.html

However, here is what Congressman J. Duncan said:

MR. DUNCAN:
Madam Speaker... IRS records show 340,000 Federal employees or Federal retirees have failed to pay their income taxes. 340,000, including, get this, almost 3,000 IRS employees. This information came from a report prepared by the government's own General Accounting Office.

Already we know from news reports that almost half of the tax advice that the IRS itself gives out is wrong. Now we discover from this GAO report that while the IRS comes after private citizens, it cannot clean its own house. Almost 3,000 IRS employees not paying their own taxes is scandalous. Federal ethics laws require Federal employees to pay their taxes as a condition of employment. These 3,000 IRS employees who have not paid their taxes should be ordered to pay immediately, or they should be fired.

But the best thing, Madam Speaker, we could do would be to tear up or burn the confusing, convoluted Tax Code we now have, come up with a new, simple system and do away with the IRS monster as we know it today.

-- Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr., speech before the House of Representatives, June 19, 2001

 

Maybe the IRS and Federal employees know something that the rest of you don't know. Even if we discount two-thirds as simple tax cheats (from experience, it is entirely believable that two-thirds of all people will cheat on something) that still leaves over 100,000 government people not paying income tax. These people are insiders with the government, people we would expect to be well versed in such affairs, especially the IRS employees. Perhaps, some of them have actually read and know their own rules.

Government Printing Office response: To emails regarding incomplete tax regulations on GPO's site.

As late as 2003, it was not possible to download a complete copy of tax regulations from the Government Printing Office website. Although the GPO was notified, for years, that many regulations were missing from each year's edition, the problem was eventually solved, at least on our end, by utilizing sections from different years to compile our Repaired Edition.

This is now no longer an issue, since the 2004 regs were eventually fixed by the GPO, and since the GPO produced the eCFR website.

> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:42:08 PM
> To: gpoaccess@gpo.gov
> Subject: Missing section of CFR for all years

You are missing:
31.6011(a)-10 for every year of CFR you have online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Response from Hendrix M 11/26/2004 12:19 PM
(From GPO, via account required for obtaining answer to a question asked of the GPO)

Hello :

What title were you refering to? The cfr has 50 titles.

Thank you for contacting the U.S. Government Printing Office. If you need further assistance, please contact us via e-mail at gpo@custhelp.com or via phone locally at 202-512-1530 or toll-free at 888-293-6498.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

> Sent: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:57:12 -0800 (PST)
> To: gpoaccess@gpo.gov
> Subject: Broken links for Title 26 CFR

Broken links on Title 26 CFR 2004:

Every link under 1.1-1.60
and
31.6011(a)-10 is missing for all years online.
Can some one please fix them?
Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------

No Response

---------------------------------------------------------------------

> Sent: 11/27/2004 09:16 AM
> To: gpoaccess@gpo.gov
> Subject: Broken links for Title 26 CFR

Hi
Title 26, 31.6011(a)-10 is missing for all published years.
Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------

No Response

---------------------------------------------------------------------

> Sent: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:58:10 -0800 (PST)
> To: gpoaccess@gpo.gov
> Subject: Missing links - file not found- Title 26

Hi
There are broken, missing, file not found links
in 2004 26CFR for all of 1.1-1.60
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Response from Hendrix M 11/29/2004 10:25 AM
From GPO via account made for answering questions
Hello:

We are researching into this and will respond later on today.

Thank you for contacting the U.S. Government Printing Office. If you need further assistance, please contact us via e-mail at gpo@custhelp.com or via phone locally at 202-512-1530 or toll-free at 888-293-6498.

[A response "later on today" is now many months and many emails later and still no response.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

> Sent: 12/11/2004 12:11 AM
> To: gpoaccess@gpo.gov
> Subject: Missing links - file not found- Title 26

Hi,
Please be aware that there are broken links on the official online copies of the US Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 26. Currently (as of Dec. 10, 2004), none of the official online
editions of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26, are complete.

-- In particular, for this year, 2004, Title 26 CFR Sec. 1.1 through 1.60 have broken links (file
not found errors) for each section.

-- Part 31, Sec. 6011(a)-10 is not available for any year on the GPO Access website, except on the
unofficial beta website, the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.

-- Also, Part 500-599 is incorrectly linked for 2003 and 2004, while 2001 and 2002 are linked to
year 2000 regulations. So, the most currect regs available for Part 500-599 are from the year
2000.

Emails regarding this have already been sent to gpoaccess@gpo.gov, but with no response.

Please... can you indicate if this can be fixed, and when?
Or, just fix the current year 2004 regulations for Title 26?

Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------

No Response

---------------------------------------------------------------------

> Sent: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:51:55 -0800 (PST)
> To: gpoaccess@gpo.gov
> Subject: CFR Title 26 broken links and missing files

Hi GPO Access User Support Team,

I written before to tell you links are broken in CFR Title 26 and files are missing. I'd really like to use the CFR online, but it's incomplete. Would someone please run a link checker and search for file not found errors, they're everywhere. I'd like to get an estimate for when this will get done, please. I've been asking for awhile now.

And, it would be helpful if you could set up the CFR search function to quit ignoring "stop" words like "how" and "to", etc. Can you just get rid of stop words completely? It is preventing complete searches from being made of the US tax rules. Your website needs and advanced search function. Most search engines have one. Can't we get one on the US tax regulations, too?

Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------

No Response

---------------------------------------------------------------------

> Sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:44:13 -0800 (PST)
> To: gpoaccess@gpo.gov
> Subject: The Code of Federal Regs, Title 26 are incomplete with broken links/ missing files

GPO Access User Support Team,

I've written several times to the Government Printing Office support team asking for help with missing files and broken links in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26, Internal Revenue.

I'd like to do research online, but I find that every year available online of the officially published editions of CFR Title 26 is incomplete. Could someone run a link checker and a search for "File not found" pages?

Currently (as of Jan. 30, 2005), none of the official online editions of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26, are complete.

-- In particular, for this year, 2004, Title 26 CFR Sec. 1.1 through 1.60 have broken links (file not found errors) for each section.

-- Part 31, Sec. 6011(a)-10 is not available for any year on the GPO Access website, except on the unofficial beta website, the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.

-- Also, Part 500-599 is incorrectly linked for 2003 and 2004, while 2001 and 2002 are linked to year 2000 regulations. So, the most currect regs available for Part 500-599 are from the year 2000.

Is there somewhere else I should write to for these repairs to the CFR?

Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------

No Response

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Example of a letter sent to Congressmen, Senators, and the IRS Commissioner:

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Senator Edward Kennedy
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kennedy,

As a fellow American I am asking for your help. I've found critical issues that present a major problem for all of us. The GPO mission statement is to "Keep America Informed", and the IRS mission statement is "helping them understand," but neither is followed. So, I turn to you.

The critical issues are:

1) If a person downloads the tax rules, 26 CFR, and searches through every instruction on "taxable income", "excluded income", etc, they show that only "Foreign earned income" is taxable for a US citizen. Seriously - the tax regs are conflicting with current practices. Please notice:

-- "how to determine taxable income" (found in 1 file)
-- "the rules... for determining taxable income" (1 file)
-- "income that is exempt" (6 files)
-- "income that is not... exempt" (1 file)
-- "the sources of income for purposes of the income tax" (1 file)
-- "specific sources" (1 file)
-- "excluded income" (7 files)

and any similar term. No matter what term is used to find taxable income, the regulations show that only foreign earned income is taxable income for a US citizen. Their instructions are unmistakable, specific, and primarily exist in just one section of 26 CFR, even simple instructions, such as "how to determine tax" (1 file found) Sec. 861.

Any computer science student can confirm, have one check; the 'Code' is like any other code. If there is a tax on items earned by a citizen inside the United States, it truly doesn't show in the CFR, according to simple text data mining. Anyone who seeks a "deduction" (1634 files), or their "taxable income" (817 files), or "exempt income" (65 files), can see their income is not on the list of taxable items, or specific sources. Coincidently, 1040 instructions only require "you must report...income...from...outside the United States", but not "inside." Confirm this with the 1040 instructions in PDF format and Adobe's built-in search function.

2) Many income tax regulations are missing. The Government Printing Office website that has the officially published Code of Federal Regulations, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html, is incomplete with broken links and missing files for every year of tax regs they have published. It is quite an accomplishment for a citizen to compile a usable edition of 26 CFR. I've written gpoaccess@gpo.gov numerous times to make them aware of the problem. Can we please have the US tax regulations website repaired (and easier to download)? We should be able to read the rules we are expected to follow. I would be glad to provide a detailed list of broken links and missing files.

3) Should I use 26 CFR, Sec. 861 to determine taxable income? When I search the CFR I find plenty of results telling me "how to determine tax" and nearly all are found in Sec. 861. Even the cross-references and the index point me to 861. Questions:

A) Is Sec. 861 to be used in determining my tax? I have income from inside and outside the US.

B) If I should not use Sec. 861, in what section is it written who should, and who should not use Sec. 861?

C) Sec. 61(b), says "more common items... are... excluded from gross income entirely", and if another section provides specific treatment of any item, "such other... shall apply." What about 861, and what common items are excluded entirely?

D) The term "excluded income" exists in only 7 files in 26 CFR - among millions of words. A simple search confirms there is only one list of "Income that is not... exempt". Great, there should be just one list, which tells us 'what is taxed', but why is the income of the average American not on the list [Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(iii)]? The scope of Sec. 861-8 says this is the place, and the law dictionaries say, if a list does not include something, it has been excluded - "expressio unius est exclusio alterius."

E) Yes, form 1040 instructions only require that "you must report... income... from... outside the United States", but not "inside". Why is income inside the US not required in our 1040 tax form instructions? Did the editor forget? For 90 years?

F) Older tax regulations said that neither income exempted by statute nor income exempted by "fundamental law" were subject to the tax (Sec. 39.21-1 (1956)), and said that other types of income were excluded because they were, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government" (Sec. 39.22(b)-1 (1956)). What income "under the Constitution" is this?

G) Even older regulations said, "ART. 71. What excluded from gross income. --Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempted by the statute and also certain other kinds of income by statute or fundamental law free from tax. Such tax-free income should not be included in the return of income and need not be mentioned in the return, unless information regarding it is specifically called for... See article 402. The exclusion of such income should not be confused with the reduction of taxable income by the application of allowable deductions. See section 212 of the statute and article 21." (ART. 71, Regulations No. 45 (1918)). What income is exempted by fundamental law and need not be mentioned in a return? Where is fundamental law regarding income tax and their regs written?

Specifically, both the old and current tax regulations, and even 1040 instructions directly contradict IRS activity. And all the online editions of the tax regulations are still incomplete. Since all results point to Sec. 861, how can I get answers to these questions from an authority at the IRS using specific citations in tax regulations? I'm really not interested in court rulings or bulletins, please, just citations from the tax rulebook we have already been provided by the Government, and a plausible answer for questions D and E.

I thank you in advance for your time.

CC: Mark W. Everson, IRS Commissioner, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224