Regarding the HR-1

I got a response to one of my emails to wit:

"From H.R. 1 article.  Could this be why all paperwork from the irs says self-employed, small business division?

” ‘We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.’ Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are ‘taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.‘ Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680. The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies."

Now let’s look at what the Style Manual from the US Government Printing Office says:

Names of organized bodies

3.18. The full names of existing or proposed organized bodies and their shortened names are capitalized; other substitutes, which are most

often regarded as common nouns, are capitalized only in certain specified instances to indicate preeminence or distinction.

It is apparent that the ALL CAP NAMES are a TRUST! Absolutely no doubt in my mind.

THIS IS WHY YOU ALWAYS GET MAIL FOR THE SELF-EMPLOYMENT AND SMALL BUSINESS DIVISION!

THEREFORE, govern yourself accordingly as any organization, corporate or Trust when calculating tax returns.

But first, you must see how much “gross income” you have.

The courts and even the commissioner said §83 is where to go, to wit:

A review of several court cases regarding 26 USC §83(a)

“Respondent contends that the words "any person" in section 83(a) encompass independent contractors as well as employees. We agree with Respondent . . .. We reject petitioner's argument. While restricted stock plans involving employers and employees may have been the primary impetus behind the enactment of section 83, the language of the section covers the transfer of any property transferred in connection with the performance of services "to any person other than the person for whom the services are performed." (Emphasis added.) The legislative history makes clear that Congress was aware that the statute's coverage extended beyond restricted stock plans for employees. Cohn v. C.I.R., 73 USTC 443, 446 (1979); "The taxing scheme imposed by Congress more accurately reflects what taxpayer received as compensation than a scheme that taxes the taxpayer on merely a portion of the compensation."  Pledger v. C.I.R., 641 F.2d 287, 293 (CA5 1981); "The plain language of section 83(a) belies Alve's argument. Section 83(a) applies to all property transferred in connection with the performance of services. No reference is made to the term "compensation." Nor is there any statutory requirement that property have a fair market value in excess of the amount paid at the time of transfer. Indeed, if Congress had intended section 83(a) to apply solely to restricted stock used to compensate its employees, it could have used much narrower language. Indeed, Congress made section 83(a) applicable to all restricted "property," not just stock; to property transferred to "any person," not just to employees; and to property transferred "in connection with . . . services," not just compensation for employment. See Cohn v. Commissioner, 73 USTC 443, 446-47 (1979)." Alves v. C.I.R., 734 F.2d 478, 481 (CA9 1984); see also Robinson v. C.I.R., 82 USTC 444, 459 (1984); Pagel, Inc. v. Commissioner, 91 TC 200, 204-05 (Tax Court #34122-85, 1988); MacNaughton v. C.I.R., 888 F.2d 418, 421 (CA6 1989); Klingler Electric Co. v. C.I.R., 776 F.Supp. 1158, 1164 at [1] (S.D.Miss. 1991); Montelepre Systemed, Inc. v. C.I.R., 956 F.2d 496, 498 at [1] (CA5 1992); Gudmundsson v. US, 634 F.3d 212 (CA2 2011).

More importantly I cannot leave out Internal Revenue Ruling:

"Section 83 provides for the determination of the amount to be included in gross income and the timing of the inclusion when property is transferred to an employee or independent contractor in connection with the performance of services." (See IRS Revenue Ruling 2007-19, IRS' Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration), Administrative Provisions and Judicial Practice Division, 2007)."

Because §83 is universally applicable to any and all compensation, which gives me no choice, but to comply with it when I calculate my income tax liability.