Talk:Internal Revenue Code section 861
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Internal Revenue Code section 861. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Internal Revenue Code section 861 at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|WikiProject Taxation||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Puerto Rico income tax is different even as it is in the USA. Any articles? John wesley 15:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Tax protester material
I was thinking that maybe the section on tax protester arguments under section 861 could be moved to the article Tax protester arguments, with a link in this 861 article to the relevant section of the tax protester article. To me it would make more sense to keep as much of the tax protester stuff in Wikipedia in tax protester articles. On the other hand, the Tax protester arguments article is already somewhat long, so I'm not sure. Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: Having received no comments so far, I have gone ahead and moved the discussion relating to the tax protester arguments about section 861 to the article on Tax protester arguments, retaining a brief description of the argument here in this article. Yours, Famspear 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted edits by an anonymous user that deleted the disclaimer tag and the reference to the tax protester arguments. The material had been deleted with the notation "to incl. tax protest and not tax advocate is bias". It's unclear what the deleting editor intended by this. Please review the Wikipedia materials on neutral point of view. Thanks, Famspear 19:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, the term "tax protester" is not appropriate for one who agrees taxes are to be paid, but is simply questioning the laws and manner by which such payments are made. It's linguistically inappropriate. It's a misnomer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) on 21 January 2007.
- Dear anonymous user at IP 184.108.40.206: No, the term tax protester is a technical legal term under U.S. law, and is being used in its technical legal sense. In that usage, it is linguistically appropriate. Yours, Famspear 13:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I would submit to you Famspear that Wikipedia is not a legal document, and should employ the common useage of words rather than their legal counterparts. Indeed, it would be best to make that determination in EVERY Wikipedia which contains legal terms perhaps in the form of a disclaimer which preceeds each article. It is not reasonable to expect every reader of Wikipedia to understand the definitions of legal terms. The titles of Wikipedia articles should reflect this, and use the common, descriptive useage of a term rather than the obscure legal term which does not even refer the reader to a descriptive concept of what the term actually means. I understand the amount of work this may entail considering the vast quantities of articles relating to legal issues. However it would be well worth the effort in the amount of clairity and understanding which would be added to each and every article. I will gladly dedicate myself to this end, that the world at large may some day understand what is being said. PrincipalWisdom 13:40, 25 February 2007. [note: this posting is actually by user ZandarKoad]
- Dear fellow editors: I would respectfully disagree. In Wikipedia articles about legal terms -- and U.S. taxation is one of the most technical of all legal topics -- Wikipedia should use technical terms in their proper technical legal meaning -- as those terms are used in the law. Sometimes that may mean spelling out the legal definition.
- If we find a particular legal definition in an article that is somehow too tough for Wikipedia readers to deal with, we can deal with that problem as it arises. Yours, Famspear 21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not that legal definitions are not too tough to deal with. The problem is that as readers view these non legal articles they are being presented with legal terms. They know the common useage of the terms, and assume that is the intended meaning as they read through Wikipedia. The problem will never "arise" as you put it. Or rather, it is arising NOW. You admit that sometimes we may need to spell out the legal definition. But when do we determine when that is necessary? When someone mis-reads a legal term as a common useage term? When will we know when that occurs? When will the reader know when that occurs? So many laws are misunderstood by the lay person. The same is true for Wikipedia articles about laws. What benefit is that?PrincipalWisdom 16:20, 25 February 2007 [note: this posting is actually by user ZandarKoad]
Dear ZandarKoad/PrincipalWisdom: Do you have a specific suggestion regarding this article? Yours, Famspear 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)