Because you need to file a 1040, and since the 1040 guides you through the process of calculating your income earned while in the US, it is pretty much obvious where you report your income earned while in the US. It is, after all, a US tax return and the very first section after the demographic information is labeled in big, huge letters: "Income." All of lines 7 through 22 are "Income."
Page 12 of your instructions tells you who has to file the return. It also says, "Use Chart A, B, or C to see if you must file a return. U.S. citizens who lived in or had income from a U.S. possession should see Pub. 570."
Chart A mentions:
"Gross income means all income you received in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax, including any income from sources outside the United States (even if you may exclude part or all of it). Do not include social security benefits unless you are married filing a separate return and you lived with your spouse at any time in 2004."
So it would seem that "income" is, indeed, defined in the instructions. You did read the instructions, didn't you? They go through every single line of the return, explaining what it is you need to enter. All of them taken together represent "Income." The first section is reminding you that you must include foreign sources.
What were you expecting? The definition of "income" is "All of the items in this section." They then proceed to define each item in the section.
Oh, and because I think I know where you're going, yes, you have to pay income tax. The law is crystal clear. Every single citizen of the US who earns money in any way, shape, or form, from any source, needs to account for it. The law does not cotton to such disingenuous claims of, "Well, you didn't say that I, specifically, Joe Smith, need to pay taxes!"
This message has been edited by Rrhain, 02-10-2005 05:12 AM
You did not just say that, did you? As I directly asked you, you did read the instructions, did you not? What do you think "Use Chart A, B, or C to see if you must file a return" means?
They mail the thing to you every year.
quote:it is pretty much obvious where you report your income earned while in the US. It is, after all, a US tax return and the very first section after the demographic information is labeled in big, huge letters: "Income." All of lines 7 through 22 are "Income."
booklet doesn't need to mention domestic income because it is "obvious" that I am required to report it?
Logical error. You are taking an answer to one question and applying it to another. You did not ask who has to file an income tax. You asked what "income" was. My answer was to the latter, not the former.
The "obvious" part is that the definition of "income" is the section marked "Income."
Now, as for who has to file an income tax return, that is mentioned in the instructions that did read, did you not? For the third time: "Use Chart A, B, or C to see if you must file a return. U.S. citizens who lived in or had income from a U.S. possession should see Pub. 570."
quote:Page 12 of your instructions tells you who has to file the return. It also says, "Use Chart A, B, or C to see if you must file a return. U.S. citizens who lived in or had income from a U.S. possession should see Pub. 570."
Okay, this emphasizes that income from a U.S. possession requires one to refer to Pub. 570.
You did not just say that, did you? Are you incapable of reading the first sentence? What do you think "Use Chart A, B, or C to see if you must file a return" means?
Why did you ignore the very first sentence?
quote:Taxpayers (those to whom this booklet applies), need to look at the charts. I believe that the tax law DOES impose a tax on income earned from U.S. possessions, but such income is subject to special rules (I think), and, thus, those earning such income are directed to Pub. 570. But this says nothing of an American’s DOMESTIC INCOME!
You did not just say that, did you? What do you think the big section labeled "Income" means? What do you think "must file a return" means? If you must file a return and that return includes a section labeled in big, bold letters, "Income," then one has to wonder why you are having such trouble with the concept.
And since the instructions that you did read says explicitly what the general concept of "income" is (namely "Gross income means all income you received in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax, including any income from sources outside the United States (even if you may exclude part or all of it)") one has to wonder why you are having such a problem with it.
quote:What income is “exempt from tax?”
Read your tax documentation and find out. Fill out the return, following the instructions that have been provided, and find out.
You seem to be expecting that the instructions should provide you a complete list at the very beginning of every single possible thing that could be considered "exempt from tax." That is impossible because it will depend upon the type of income. So rather than put them all in the instructions for the 1040, they put them in the instructions for the other schedules where you declare the income and demonstrate that it is exempt from tax.
To be direct about it, they don't include the instructions for Schedule D (for example) in the instructions for the 1040. That's because not everybody will file a Schedule D. If you follow the instructions for the 1040, you will determine if you need to file a Schedule D, too, and then you will acquire a Schedule D and the instructions for it which will have more definitions.
That said, you did read the instructions, didn't you? Instructions for line 8b:
Line 8b Tax-Exempt Interest If you received any tax-exempt interest, such as from municipal bonds, report it on line 8b. Include any exempt-interest divi- dends from a mutual fund or other regu- lated investment company. Do not include interest earned on your IRA or Coverdell education savings account.
Now, what do you think "tax-exempt interest" means? It's interest that is exempt from taxes. Not all interest will be exempt from taxes, of course, but if you received any, and the documentation you received from the institution that provided you the tax-exempt interest will tell you, then you report it here.
quote:Is domestic income of Americans exempt from tax?
Logical error: You are attempting to make a group out of distinct entities. "Domestic income" is too broad of a term. It encompasses a whole range of income such as earnings, dividends, and interest. The point behind the phrase "domestic income" is that it is domestic income and not foreign. Since not all income, no matter where it comes from, is subject to tax, your question is nonsensical. Some domestic income of Americans is exempt from tax. Some of it is not. Check the documentation you received from the institution that provided you the income for details on whether or not it is tax-exempt.
You did read the instructions and the documentation, didn't you?
quote:It is clear that I must look to Pub. 570 if I have income from U.S. possessions. What is NOT CLEAR is what Americans should with their DOMESTIC income.
You did not just say that, did you?
What do you think the big section marked "Income" in bold letters encompassing lines 7 to 22 is?
quote:You assume that domestic income of Americans is taxable.
No, it is not an assumption. It is a declaration. You did read the instructions, did you not? What do you think the big section marked "Income" in bold letters encompassing lines 7 to 22 of the return are in reference to?
You seem to be upset that the lines do not use the word "domestic" as if that somehow lets you off the hook. Since the lines in the form continually refer to "total," how would "domestic" income manage to be excluded from that? What do you think "total" means?
quote:Finally, we hope (and I believe) that this booklet is based on the tax laws, which define these terms.
And they do. You have been shown where they do. The instructions are filled with examples of what you are looking for.
You did read the instructions, didn't you?
quote:I was merely pointing out some odd qualities in the booklet that make me wonder what the law says.
I suggest you read it. Pay special attention to the mention of the War Powers Resolution. For example:
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
quote:Also, this amendment is actually saying that a policeman cannot MAKE you present your driver's license or any other documents to him unless he first presents you with a proper warrant issued upon probable cause (that a crime has been committed) and supported by Oath (i.e., someone swears that they saw you commit a crime) or affirmation.
This was a recent case before the SCOTUS over a man in Nevada who was arguing with his daughter, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court.
You can be arrested for refusing to give your name to a policeman when asked. The SCOTUS declared that giving your name is not self-incrimination. While this particular ruling stopped short of saying that you have to provide identification, that is the clear implication.
By your logic, the cops can't ask for your driver's license when they pull you over since no oath has been made.
quote:To me, the extreme conservatives and the extreme liberals are the ones who don't think. An extreme conservative will agree with the Swift Boat veterans' accusations against Kerry because they're conservative and Kerry's liberal, not because of any evidence.
And since O'Reilly had the ringleader of the SBVs on his program and proceeded to kiss his ass for the entire time, what would that make O'Reilly?
quote:Extreme conservatives know that Anita Hill was lying, because they wanted Clarence Thomas on the supreme court.
And since O'Reilly has repeatedly come out in favor of Thomas and claimed that Hill was lying, what would that make O'Reilly?
quote:On the other hand, he blew off the Swift Boat Veterans
No, he did not! He sucked up to them in every way possible! He even went so far as to say that the SBVs never accused Kerry of lying. From his August 23 radio broadcast:
I think what they're doing is they're saying that in their experience, Kerry did X, Y, and Z. It's very -- it's nuanced [caller's name]. They don't say, "Well, he -- he lied about this." They say, "I didn't see any firing." Or, "I didn't see any Viet Cong."
But did you see the ad run by the SBVs?
Al French: "He is lying about his record."
Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart, because I treated him for that injury."
Van Odell: "John Kerry lied to get his bronze star. I know. I was there. I saw what happened."
Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates. He lied before the senate."
On the October 19 edition of his TV broadcast, O'Reilly had SBV Retired Air Force Colonel Thomas M. McNish, M.D. on who repeated the lie that Kerry collaborated with the North Vietnamese on a trip in 1970 to Paris. O'Reilly did not call him on this.
On the September 7 edition of this TV broadcast, O'Reilly had O'Neill on and O'Reilly stated, directly, that Kerry "was craven when he came back to the U.S. by besmirching all the fine soldiers in Vietnam. I think that's true." When O'Neill got to Kerry's testimony before the Senate in 1971, O'Reilly agreed with O'Neill's lie:
O'Neill: Well, the problem, Bill, is the biggest thing for us has always been, you know, classifying, you know, 58,000 of our friends, 55 of our friends that we left back there, as the army of Genghis Khan ...
O'Reilly: I agree with you.
O'Reilly agreed with O'Neill's claim that Kerry was lying when he said he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968. At no point did O'Reilly ever point out that O'Neill contradicted his own story regarding US presence in Cambodia. That is, O'Neill claims that Kerry couldn't have been in Cambodia because the US was not allowed to go into Cambodia and yet, O'Neill himself went to Cambodia talked about it with Nixon in 1971. If Kerry wasn't allowed there, why was O'Neill?
Here's what O'Reilly had to say about it on the August 24 broadcast of the TV show:
No. I don't believe it. I know he wasn't there. I know he wasn't there. So take it to the bank. You know me. I don't mislead anybody. He wasn't there.
How the hell does O'Reilly know?
Let's not forget that Tony Snow, fellow Fox personality, appeared on the September 15 broadcast of the TV program and said, "there has been no documentary contradiction of the swift boat stuff." O'Reilly never contradicted him.
For you to say that O'Reilly is not an extremist indicates extreme disingenuousness on your part. And no, you can't chalk it up to "I don't know a lot of his views." He makes them crystal clear every single time he opens his yap.
quote:is uninterested in a political candidate's morals
You did not just say that, did you?
Who do you think was at the forefront of the lynch mob to impeach Clinton?
quote:thinks Clinton's fiscal policies were pretty good
You did not just say that, did you?
Who do you think is one the loudest voices in the echo chamber regarding Bush's destruction of the economy?
The man LIED about being a Republican so he could claim to be "impartial." What is that if not both partisan and extreme?
When he calls Senator Boxer a nut, what is that if not partisan politics?
quote:I would be surprised to hear he advocated Republican over Democrat or Conservative over Liberal just because of designation.
Are you truly that naive? I only see a couple of possibilities. Either the definition of "center" in American politics has moved so far to the right that somebody as extremist as O'Reilly can be considered "moderate"...
...or you're simply lying.
Tell us, truthlover...why would O'Reilly lie about being a Republican?
quote:There is no need to accuse another poster of lying.
Even if he could quite easily be lying?
It really is one of only two possibilities. O'Reilly lies when he says he isn't partisan. He clearly is. Anybody who has ever listened to his broadcasts for more than a minute can see that he is clearly partisan.
For that person to then say that O'Reilly is not partisan is either being extremely disingenuous...
Or he's lying.
Truthlover can easily respond by simply saying, "I must admit that I was exaggerating when I said I listened to O'Reilly. I've only heard him maybe once or twice, always at the tail end of the program, so I never actually get to hear him take any stand about anything. I am really in no position to make any claim about his political positions."
And that would make him disingenuous for having said that O'Reilly wasn't partisan.
[Of course, it would still cause us to question the ability to trust anything truthlover said if he thought he could determine the political positions of a person whom he doesn't listen to. It is not ad hominem to point out that somebody is in no position to make a claim and that he is lying when he indicates he is.]
But if truthlover is going to insist upon saying that he has listened to O'Reilly in any depth at all, then the only conclusion left is that he is lying.
How many quotes of O'Reilly's pandering to the right must I bring forth before it becomes apparent that he is a partisan hack and anybody who claims he isn't is stating a huge falsehood?
quote:Debate the topic, not the person.
But the topic is lies and the lying liars who tell them. Truthlover is flacking for O'Reilly, claiming he isn't partisan. Does it not make sense to show that to be the lie that it is and then demand of him to explain why he said something so patently untrue?
quote:Unless you can prove it and show that he is knowingly lying, Drop it. Now!
You mean I am not allowed to actually investigate him in order to show that he is, indeed, lying? I gave him an option. He might simply be incredibly naive and thus, his opinion still counts for nothing.
Are you saying we are not allowed to point out that a poster's statements are not to be trusted dependent upon the reason why they are unreliable? We are pefectly allowed to point out that someone is being incredibly stupid? But if they turn out to have lied, we aren't allowed to mention it? We have to simply say, "Well, I disagree"?
Take a look at what is happening with regard to Brit Hume's quotation of FDR regarding Social Security. Hume claimed that FDR was in favor of privitization. The problem is that he performed a hatchet job of a long speech, cutting out context left and right, finally saying that one part was talking about point A when in actuality, it was talking about point B and no amount of claims of "interpretation" could possibly lead any sane person to think it was talking about anything but B.
Are you seriously saying that it is unfair to say that either Hume's reading skill is in extreme need of training (which is just a wordy way of saying that he's an idiot) or that Hume is a liar? We are allowed to proffer the idea that Hume is an idiot but that he is a liar is beyond the pale?
quote:Debate the position, not the individual.
The position that O'Reilly is not partisan is false. I am asking what truthlover is using to justify the claim that he is not. Is it because truthlover is being disingenuous or is it because he lied? I am not allowed to ask probing questions to find out? Something about truthlover's story doesn't smell right because it is impossible to listen to O'Reilly for any length of time and come to the conclusion that he is not an extreme right-wing blowhard.
So either truthlover hasn't listened to O'Reilly for any length of time (and thus wasn't exactly truthful when he said he has listened to him) or he is completely pulling this claim of O'Reilly's impartiality out of his ass (and is being a big, fat liar). OR, truthlover has drunk the right-wing Kool-Aid and doesn't understand what "extreme partisan" means.
Now, note the important word in that statement. Does the word "or" mean nothing to you? It implies a choice. There is something that might be true. On the other hand, it might not be true and instead, something else might be true. We don't know which one it is at this point, so we'll have to investigate.
I haven't called him a liar yet.
I have simply challenged him to show that he wasn't lying.
We can forgive him for exaggerating his familiarity with O'Reilly's body of work, depending on context. I'd like to know just how much truthlover has actually paid attention to the broadcasts. He admits that it's haphazard at best. He actually got a definitive factual claim of O'Reilly's treatment of the Swift Boat Veterans wrong. He claimed that O'Reilly "blew them off." But that isn't true. He had them on the show over and over and over again.
We can dismiss him if he has simply become one of the sheeple who thinks that Alan Colmes is actually a liberal.
But a significant possibility is that he wasn't being honest. So please, let truthlover explain how he came to the conclusion that O'Reilly isn't an extreme partisan.
Is he really that naive? Was he stretching things a little when he said he's listened to O'Reilly? Is he a complete boob? Was he simply lying?
Quite a number of options. Are we not allowed to consider the possibility that he's just making it up?
Someone can say something absolutely outrageous here and it is beyond the pale to present the option that he pulled that statement out of his ass?
If I were to come here and say that you invited me over to your home in order to have wild, passionate sex, it would be inappropriate for you to say that I'm lying?