" Uncle Sam" may be Old- but his not Stupid. Just ask Wesley Snipes, Nick Cage, Al Capone.That Old Man is an Enforcer.

And those race track tix better not have shoeprints on em LOL

If anyone is doing any scamming, it is the IRS!

Isn't it about time they make another (star trek) instructional video for 60k like they did before?

Or maybe they are just to busy harassing the tea party to do that anymore.

The less you give them, the less they have to piss away on conferences that cost us 49 million dollars in just 3 years.

More power to the ticket sellers in my book.

Most people don't understand to use the value of the losing tickets, they must give up the standard deductions. And depending on how much they are claiming as losses, the IRS could question where they got the money to buy those tickets.

I am curious how they would treat a lottery pool? I run one for years. It was nothing for us as a group to have over $100 dollars per drawing (2 drawings a week) when the prizes were high.

At the end of the year, I would have a substantial amount of losing tickets. One year someone asked me if they could have them. I told them yes, they were as much his as anyone else in the group. I only kept them if anyone wanted to check through them again for whatever reason. At the end of the year I generally just threw them away.

There's a guy here in town that plays $3,000 to $4,000 a day on 3 digit and 4 digit lottery tickets. I was always curious how much he wins, how much he loses and how much he is able to write-off? He has to get flagged every year when he files his taxes. 

Here's a suggestion. Everyone needs to LEARN that the income tax is an Excise tax and contrary to popular (the earth is flat understanding) income tax has nothing to do with the average guy. A better name for "Income Tax" would be "International Tax on Income" (in relation to the source and owner of the monies being transacted) 

There's a book I have called Income Tax: Shattering the Myths by Dave Champion. Probably the best book I've ever read on the topic of what, whom, why and how the income tax is to be applied. 

Just for the record. Most people, before you even respond with any mis-guided responses, just please, for the love of God, understand that the income tax is an indirect tax, specifically an excise tax (BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)) and that the 16th Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of TAXATION (STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916))and that the average guy, living and working in the private sector in anyone of the 50 States of the Union earning his/her own domestic US source monies has absolutely nothing to do with the income tax (contrary to what everyone thinks they know but never read one word of the law to prove or even understand, because after all, little ol' Mr./Mrs/Miss American can't understand the law according to tax professionals whom themselves NEVER read the law to determine whom is liable/upon whom the tax has been imposed).

And NO, the definition of "Gross Income" under Section 61 (all income from whatever source derived) of Subtitle A (IRC: Income Taxes) does NOT impose the tax, it's a definition of what Gross Income is, WHEN one is actually liable for the tax or the tax has been imposed. One must actually read the words of the law, in the entire Subtitle A to actually understand what the tax is, whom it's upon and under what circumstances. Just because the earth used to be flat and apparently smoking cigarettes in the 1950s was considered healthy by Doctors (You know, authority figures that people look to for answers to life), DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Conventional wisdom you know is in many cases, well, is just flat out wrong.

Im sure Im gonna get the "but you go to jail if you don't pay it man" responses. And sadly, I can write 15 pages on just that topic alone and why that's the case. But, again, might equals right in the eyes of most people because simply that's the nature of most people, to be scared of what they have ZERO clue and understanding about and to be scared of the bully because he will do harm to you (in this case, financially). 

In closing, the average guy whom actually wins lottery money has NO income tax duty even though they are forced to file W2-GAMING forms and what not before taking possession of what's left of the winnings. Which is one of the many reasons why I care so deeply about the mis-application of the Income Tax (knowingly by the US Govt).

Remember, the income tax is one of MANY MANY taxes imposed. And it would be wise for people to know how the tax works and why the tax works the way it does.

Thanks for your time.

You know, if it's a huge amount of money being deducted & the IRS really wants to prove they're not deductible, all they need do is determine the time they were bought, make sure it's possible they were bought by one person only (ie - no buying of a bunch of tickets at 8:01am in Detroit, and another bunch at 8:05am in Los Angeles), and then subpoena the video of the places where the tickets were bought, to compare the visual of who bought the tickets to make sure they match (ie - comparing a 7 foot white guy buying tickets in 1 location at one time to a short black woman buying tickets at a later time). 

In other words, it seems really easy to screw up & get in trouble with the IRS.  If you win the lottery, just pay your taxes & sleep better at night...

Lottery Playa,

Find out what you can about Irwin Schiff.

The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion? About 15 to 20 years.

Coin Toss,

I know all about Irwin Schiff. Irwin was a fan of filing ZERO income tax returns. 

If you have no income tax liability, you have NO REASON to be touching a 1040 form.

Since Irwin was a fan of commiting PERJURY on a Federal Tax form, he got what he got. 

On another note, they do treat Irwin, who was NOT violent worse than a rapist. I find that quite odd. Well then, again, it is the US Govt, so I don't find it quite odd.

Best if you actually research what I said instead of pulling the "Irwin Schiff" card

This another good example to allow registered gambling, online or offline with player cards like here in Sweden. When I want to play in store or online I need to validate my bets in some way. I cannot transfer my made bets to another person.

Before acting on what Dave Champion has written about taxes, I suggest reading up on United States v. David A. Champion.

Know all about it.

Interesting case, because the IRS agents lied about their names and would not reveal their actual identities. Unless of course you believe the US Govt is somehow in the truth telling business.

And Judge Percy Anderson held that to be OK by the way, protecting the Agent's actual identities, which is absolute non-sense. And that's not all either.... 

The case was about "the List" of Dave Champion's clients. Because Dave himself was never prosecuted for NOT FILING A TAX RETURN (Gee, go figure, you think from your post that's what you are implying)

Secondly, don't know if you actually read the case, but it never stopped Dave Champion from writing the book and obviously he isn't in jail

So the question is, the information contained in the book, CAN U PROVE IT FALSE?

That's what it really boils down to. Everyone who has a brain knows the US Govt goes out of its way to do whatever possible to public figures relating to the income tax, and Dave is still standing. 

Again, what I need from all those who decide to respond, I need you to point out the error in the information contained in the book, Income Tax: Shattering the Myths, otherwise you are just using deceptive garbage to try and take away from the substance of the conclusion of what the Income Tax actually is.

If you won would you be curious what everybody's share of the prize is? It works exactly the same way with the losing tickets. Everybody has an interest that's proportional to their interest in the pool.

If you knew the person was planning on using the tickets to commit tax fraud you're at least an accomplice, and possibly a co-conspirator.

Well the IRS has been defrauding the people since 1913 so...

 ahh free markets  will find a way

Lottery Playa,

As far as a lottery jackpot goes, good luck collecting the check if you play the no-tax angle ("government you", not just you but anybody).

I know, really silly when other countries don't tax winners anything, but that's other countries.

Have you ever read a book called The April Game by a "Diogenes"?  Very interesting read. He is a former IRS agent who wrote a book about tax avoidance cases that made him furious- one case was someone living in a mansion filing ass a 'starving artist' and he got away with it.

Another reason we need tax reform.  We should go to a 100% property tax paid per acre you own.  No way to cheat that.  The government knows about every acre of land in America.  If you own an acre of land with a house on it by April 15th you owe 4 checks.  One to the city, state, county, and the feds.  Simple.  Nobody could cheat that.  Obviously there would be battles to rate property commercial, residential, farm land, or oil land but you couldn't cheat it.

Eliminate deductions, sales taxes, income taxes, and estate taxes altogether.  This would save billions on auditors and tax accountants.  The total take to the government would be greater.  It won't happen.  To much politics and lobbyists.  No one could say it favors rich people.  Corporations would pay the most. Businesses would pay next.  Home owners third.  Poor would pay nothing.  Simple.

Also the federal government could charge oil companies so much for every acre that they are drilling in American Oceans.  Obviously those acres would be at a higher rate.

The federal government is holding millions of acres of land not being put to use.  It would be an incentive to raise money selling alot of that land and then getting the extra property tax revenue from it. 

I've though about this for years and wonder why some national politician hasn't run on this as a major rung in their platform.  How much opposition could there be? 

What it really boils down to is that regardless of any theoretical merit to his claims, in practice the courts have consistently rejected pretty much everything he says, and anyone using his arguments to justify not paying taxes is in for a world of hurt when the IRS notices.

I quote from the summary judgement against him:

"Champion’s theories concerning the Government’s taxing authority are wrong."

And from the notice he is now required by court order to include in every copy of the book you so admire:

"TO ALL PURCHASERS OF INCOME TAX: SHATTERING THE MYTHS:

Under no circumstances should you rely on the content of Income Tax: Shattering the Myths in determining your federal income tax liability. You should instead seek appropriate professional assistance (e.g. from an attorney, certified public accountant, or otherwise properly licensed and reputable tax return preparer)."

Coin Toss, 

I appreciate your response and I get your point. Realistically, we have this tax, called Income Tax. We have the law which says A and the US Govt doing B or trying it's darnedest to convince the US public that the income tax is a tax upon any Citizen who makes money, period. Now the problem with their assumption is it's NEVER backed up with what the statutes say or they take a general section and mis-represent it's purpose, the Definition of Gross Income comes to mind.

It's so screwed up in the Federal Courts that even on the issue of Direct vs Indirect tax that half the courts believe the Income Tax is a direct tax while the other half believe its an Indirect tax. Can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. The income tax is an Indirect Tax, specifically an Excise. Ill even quote Brushaber v Union Pacific direct from 1916 in relation to the nature of the 16th Amendment right here:

"recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it."

I've obviously bolded the key points in RED. 

It's so bad, that a tax accountant had the audacity to call the Income Tax "a class of taxation all of it's own". Again, that was in relation to asking her if she knew if the tax was direct or indirect. When I told her it was an indirect tax, specifically and excise, she went ballistic and that's when she said "the Income Tax is a class of taxation all of it's own" meaning she thinks its another type of tax entirely outside the class of Direct or Indirect. In essence creating a 3rd power of taxation, which is absolutely with out merit. Entirely uninformed it what she is. You might as well just call it the Mystery Tax. Fits better with most people's assumptions about the tax.

The US Govt makes all kinds of absurd characterizations in relation to "people like me" and what I "claim to believe" about the Income Tax. Example, the US Govt says that the courts have consistently ruled against "rejecting concept that filing of income tax return is purely voluntary". And this is where the US Govt propagandizes the Income Tax. While I do agree with the US Govt on this one (Go Figure, i know) the US Govt is implying un-stated conclusions. For instance, filing a tax return is NOT voluntary by any stretch of the imagination, it's REQUIRED by those whom have tax liability and hence forth would then become "taxpayers". Now the next question a person of intelligence would need to ask is, whom is liable and what are the circumstances when one becomes liable. Here's a brain teaser, the income tax is the ONLY tax where person A is made liable while person B is the "person" whom the tax is imposed on (the subject of the tax).

By the way, the definition of "taxpayer" is located at Section 7701(a)(14) which says "The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax" Now, how can one determine who is a taxpayer from this definition. You can't. That's precisely why one needs to read the statutes and regulations to find out who that "taxpayer" actually is. Can't just guess and assume it's anyone you want it to be. That's precisely why definitions and statutory construction are absolutely critical.

Anyone who knows me knows that the Income Tax mis-application is a passion of mine. Why? Because the US Govt uses the most disgusting methods of control over us through the manipulation of our finances. Keeping people in fear over this is one primary way to control. And for someone to assume that the power of such control was delegated to congress is sorely mistaken. Hence, why the law says what is says and why the "average joe" has NO CLUE as to the statutory requirements of such tax.

I need to stop somewhere, so I will leave it at that. But in relation to the collecting a large sum of money from the lotteries, yes, you are right, they wont let you walk out that door with what's yours because of their mis-understanding of the tax itself. It's one of those self fulfilling prophecies where person A does it so person B does it so Person C does it so Person D does it, etc etc etc... you get the idea. Everyone does it because Everyone does it.

What better than to actually have the people educated as to what the law says, why it says what it says and why it never said what most thought it always said.

and with all that you just said, you might as well said nothing. I've read the entire case. And those are NOT the assumptions of Dave Champion. If you happened to have read the book Income Tax: Shattering the Myths, you would have known that.

The Government forcing the author telling people not to "rely on the content" of the book is nothing more than pure political non-sense and theater. I thought you would have realized that as obvious. 

Imagine the guy who robs your house tells you not to call 911, because they won't help you. Would you believe him?

Sometimes I wonder about peoples minds. It's like they can't think for themselves and go along with any old "directive" they are given because they were told it's so. 

No offense to you, but that's really just a lame argument you make. 

Let me help you, Let's list what it says in the motion... ready... here's a copy and paste directly from the court document......

 the Court has concluded that Champion’s theories concerning the Government’s taxing authority are wrong. Views such as those advanced by Champion have been rejected as frivolous by all courts that have analyzed similar arguments. See generally United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993) (rejecting concept that filing of income tax return is purely voluntary); United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986) (rejecting concept that individuals are not “persons” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986) (rejecting concepts that wages do not constitute “income” subject to federal income taxation, and noting in dicta that “this argument has been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for decades”).

Let's go through them for the readers benefit, shall we. Having read the book in it's entirety, the above claims are Meritless and distract from what the book actually says. And also begs the question as to why the court did NOT quote directly from the book in their court documents, as they easily could have since they had a copy of it. But they chose not to. That's telling in and of itself. Never the less the court says:

1) rejecting concept that filing of income tax return is purely voluntary

         For the record, Dave Champion has ALWAYS held that filing an Income Tax return is REQUIRED, the opposite of Voluntary.

2) rejecting concept that individuals are not “persons” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code

         For the record, Dave Champion has NOWHERE said individuals are NOT persons. In fact he has stated numerous times and in his book the opposite. In fact, the term US Person includes a US Citizen.

3) rejecting concepts that wages do not constitute “income” subject to federal income taxation, and noting in dicta that “this argument has been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for decades

          For the record, Dave Champion absolutely states that WAGES, as defined, are "Income" subject to the tax

So, for all the fuss you make, you actually didn't read the book or know what the conclusion is. My suggestion, read the book. You might just come away with a different conclusion than the one you just gave and be able to present information in a truthful and honest manner.

I tell you why there would be a lot of opposition. Because the US Constitution requires all Direct Taxes be "Apportioned" among the several States. If one understands apportionment of direct taxes, then one realizes how labor intensive and troublesome to lay such a tax is for the Federal Govt. The Founders where well aware of the abuse of government and have protected against that invasion with the hurdle of the Constitutional requirement that ALL direct taxes must be apportioned.

And, for the clincher, a tax on land is Constitutionally a Direct tax, subject to, you guessed it, apportionment. 

And that's why that would never fly. 

Amazing what one can do when knowledge is present. That's the problem with the school system nowadays, it pretty much excludes this type of understanding.

My saying always has been, knowledge is not power, but the application of knowledge is the true power. It's like gas in a gas tank. The gas is potential energy. But becomes useful when actually burned in the engine to produce power.

First of all that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. The IRS is a hornets nest of fraud and I would have absolutely np with anything he did to save a dime or two. It's not like he made money, he could only offset his winnings.

Now with all that said, I have no clue what he did with them. I don't know if he ever had a personal win big enough to need offsetting. He sure didn't tell us if he did, and we sure didn't as a group. For all I know he just used them for second chance drawings. And besides why are we the only country (that I am aware of) that taxes our lottery? Because they are greedy little <snip>s, that's why!

Lottery Playa:

§7701(a)(14): "The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax"

This means that if any tax defined in the tax code applies to you, everything the law says using the word "taxpayer" applies to you.

§63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions.

§61 defines gross income as generally referring to "all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)" a long list of sources.  Subchapter B, Part III provides a list of exceptions.

This means that in general, if you have income, it's taxable.

§1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of every person who falls into any of the following categories:

(a)(1)/(d) Married individual

(a)(2) Surviving spouse

(b) Head of household

(c) Unmarried individual other than surviving spouse or head of household

This means any individual who has any taxable income is unquestionably a taxpayer. 

Therefore, your claim that "the average guy, living and working in the private sector in anyone of the 50 States of the Union earning his/her own domestic US source monies has absolutely nothing to do with the income tax" appears to be flat-out false on a plain reading of the text of the law. Would you care to point out relevant sections I've overlooked?

Let's look at what you just said....

You say:

§7701(a)(14): "The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax"

This means that if any tax defined in the tax code applies to you, everything the law says using the word "taxpayer" applies to you.

I say:

That's correct. Now tell me how you become a taxpayer. And it's not just making money that makes someone a "taxpayer" for purposes of the income tax

You say:

§63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions.

§61 defines gross income as generally referring to "all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)" a long list of sources.  Subchapter B, Part III provides a list of exceptions.

This means that in general, if you have income, it's taxable.

 I say:

Your phrase, if you have income it's taxable... IS NOT REMOTELY WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

Those are definitions you described. Definitions do NOT impose taxes. You also say that "in general, if you have income, it's taxable" is NOWHERE to be found in the law, ANYWHERE.

First off, the imposition of the tax is upon taxable income, NOT INCOME. Sec 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions. Sec 61 defines gross income as all income from whatever source derived.

The tax is upon TAXABLE INCOME. Neither Sec 63, nor Sec 61 give any knowledge to anyone having any Taxable Income. All they do is define what the terms mean. And again, the definition does not impose anything on anyone nor make anyone liable at this point. Those sections are found later. And as you are well aware, the tax is upon the "Taxable Income" of head of household, married, unmarried...etc etc... not on "Income".

If you like, I can give u a massive break down of how the tax works according to the law in which I will have more time to write extensively on the who, what when where concepts so you have a clear understanding. 

I know where you are coming from and unfortunately, most people have the general same understanding that you do but do not know how it actually works. Again, you just repeated some general definitions and the section that imposed the tax upon "taxable income".

If you like, we can get into a through discussion of the requirements of the law. And do keep in mind, the Income Tax is an excise. I hope you know what that means. Ill just say this, the law is written as an excise, the US Supreme Court has ruled it an excise and it's NO mistake the law says what it says to reflect that reality.

veganlife125: Also the federal government could charge oil companies so much for every acre that they are drilling in American Oceans. Obviously those acres would be at a higher rate.

Uh, they already do.  Just a few weeks ago, the govt.  held a lease sale for a huge tract in the Gulf of Mexico and received well over half a billion dollars.  There are stipulations/time limits on the leases, they're not held in perpetuity.

While I do agree that the fed. govt. owns way too much property (one-eighth of all U.S. land, plus anything offshore from the state boundaries to 200 miles out, I believe), who gets to buy the excess?  You, me?  We already own it since "we" are the govt. (and they do sell land from time-to-time) I could nitpick several of your other suggestions (for one, totally eliminating charitable deductions would hamstring many charities), but if you just want to tax property owners, then I'd want to stipulate that only people who own taxable property (excluding cars, boats, etc.) should be allowed to vote...and that would never fly.  Still, why should people who pay no federal taxes have a say in how those taxes are spent? That's akin to me deciding how much you can spend out of your wages and on what.

Cutting or doing away with most taxes is a good idea, but a much better one is slashing spending.

You say:

Now tell me how you become a taxpayer. And it's not just making money that makes someone a "taxpayer" for purposes of the income tax

I say:

That definition has nothing to do with making someone a taxpayer. It's about defining what the word "taxpayer" means for purposes of this law. You become a taxpayer if a tax is imposed on you anywhere in the law. The main reason for this broad, seemingly circular definition is so that if they amend the law to impose a tax on some new type of entity, all the provisions of the law regarding "taxpayers" will automatically apply to that entity.

You say:

You also say that "in general, if you have income, it's taxable" is NOWHERE to be found in the law, ANYWHERE.

I say:

You're right, that was an oversimplification. If you have income in excess of the deductions defined in the law, it's taxable, unless it comes from one of the sources specified in Subchapter B, part III.

You say:

Those are definitions you described. Definitions do NOT impose taxes.

I say:

§1 imposes the tax. §63 and §61 define the terms used in (among other places) §1.

You say:

And do keep in mind, the Income Tax is an excise. I hope you know what that means. Ill just say this, the law is written as an excise, the US Supreme Court has ruled it an excise and it's NO mistake the law says what it says to reflect that reality.

I say:

In the context of US taxation, the term "excise" means that it's the sort of tax that does not need to be apportioned among the states in proportion to population. Nothing more. This is a non-issue.

You totally skip over the liability part and go straight to definitions. And i know why, because you are not familiar with any of those sections. Understandable, since you spout the same non-sense that most do. And your over simplification is NOT in the law. Trust me, if it were that easy, it would have been written that way. The entire "Income Tax" is a maze of obfuscation, word smithing and the like. And it's done that way on purpose. I can draw no other conclusion based on how it was written.

Here's a great example. 

Take the definition of 26 §7701(c) includes and including:

The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

Now here's the same type definition of includes and including in 27 §72.11 CFR

The terms “includes” and “including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.

Now you tell me, why the legislative draftsman wrote 26 §7701(c) in such a backwards illogical utterly tongue twisting way and in 27 §72.11 CFR, Just one title away, they state PLAINLY the meaning of the term?! They both say the same exact thing except the IRC one says it in such an unnatural mind numbing way that you can't draw any other conclusion then it was meant to obfuscate. Because, to this day, there is a TON of confusion of that definition. Had it been defined like 27 §72.11 CFR there would NOT be the confusion that currently exists over it.

Take a look at the definition of employee under 26 §3401(c) (Note, this is the term employee relating to the form W4 by the way)

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

This definition clearly denotes a class of items. And none of them are "average joe". And this definition uses "Includes" which as you know, has it's own definition as was just described.

You can argue till the cows come home anyway you like, and you can ask almost ANY tax professional, and they have NO CLUE, ZERO, about ANY DEFINITIONS pertaining to employee for purposes of W4 forms! And if that definition included "average Joe", IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO, but conveniently does not. What a coincidence.

IRS Publications, another favorite of mine. 

IRS Publications are sort of like "New Letters" put out by the IRS to the tax industry, including mostly ALL CPA's and Tax "Professionals". The IRS has a manual available on their website which any one can go read. Here's what THEIR OWN manual says about their own publications:

4.10.7.2.8 (01-01-2006)
IRS Publications

"IRS Publications explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors. They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating Service positions, and include worksheets. Publications are nonbinding on the Service and do not necessarily cover all positions for a given issue. While a good source of general information,publications should not be cited to sustain a position."

The IRS has plainly stated in their OWN manual that Publications are NOT to be cited to sustain positions about the LAW even though that is what all tax professionals do anyway. This is because IRS publications and pamphlets are NOT the law. The IRS has already vindicated themselves from people who WRONGLY use publications like they are the law or come to a "mis-understanding" about the Law.

Seems there's a lot of dishonesty in word smithing to make people confused about this topic when it comes to Income Tax (Subtitle A) and Employment Tax (Subtitle C).

Here's a US Supreme Court case

MEESE v. KEENE, 481 U.S. 465 (1987)

As judges it is our duty to [481 U.S. 465, 485]  construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.

Seems pretty straightforward. The court is just saying you NEED TO READ the statutes in light of how the legislation is written, NOT AS IT MIGHT be understood by a layman or someone who has NEVER READ IT! And most tax professionals have NEVER READ THE DEFINITIONS OF WORDS THEY THINK THEY KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN. 

Im NOT anti tax or anti government. On the Contrary, im pro Constitutional government.

You say:

You totally skip over the liability part and go straight to definitions.

I say:

What exactly is this "liability part" you refer to? It looks to me like §1(a)-(d) imposes a tax on the taxable income of every individual, and everything beyond that is a matter of definitions (specifically, the definition of "taxable income").