Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ask a Tax Lawyer about the Tax Law

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Granted, the statute if read literally imposes tax on the "income." From what I am trying to gather, you are trying to assert the code only has jurisdiction over the "income" and not the individual who receives the income.

The courts can use many arguments based on traditional theories of jurisprudence to assert jurisdiction over the person, even if the strict letter of the law only gives it jurisdiction over the "income." For starters, the court has in rem jurisdiction (jurisdiction over property) over the income. As such, the court can use its jurisdiction to direct how the property will be disposed of and whom will have control over the property. If a taxpayer is withholding "income" the court can direct the taxpayer to fork over the "income" because it has jurisdiction over the income.

There is also a traditional theory that the law must make sense. The tax laws have to have implied jurisdiction over the person to work. The tax laws clearly create an enforcement mechanism to enforce the tax laws (e.g. there are penalties for people who violate tax laws on "persons" like Sections 6702) and it creates an elaborate set of rules to be enforced. If any person can avoid the enforcement mechanism by simply stating the court does not have jurisdiction over him, the law clearly falls apart. Therefore, there is an implied jurisdiction over the person because Congress is not going to go through the trouble of creating a complex set of rules and enforcement mechanisms if those rules will fall apart.




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Granted, the statute if read literally imposes tax on the "income." From what I am trying to gather, you are trying to assert the code only has jurisdiction over the "income" and not the individual who receives the income.

The courts can use many arguments based on traditional theories of jurisprudence to assert jurisdiction over the person, even if the strict letter of the law only gives it jurisdiction over the "income." For starters, the court has in rem jurisdiction (jurisdiction over property) over the income. As such, the court can use its jurisdiction to direct how the property will be disposed of and whom will have control over the property. If a taxpayer is withholding "income" the court can direct the taxpayer to fork over the "income" because it has jurisdiction over the income.

There is also a traditional theory that the law must make sense. The tax laws have to have implied jurisdiction over the person to work. The tax laws clearly create an enforcement mechanism to enforce the tax laws (e.g. there are penalties for people who violate tax laws on "persons" like Sections 6702) and it creates an elaborate set of rules to be enforced. If any person can avoid the enforcement mechanism by simply stating the court does not have jurisdiction over him, the law clearly falls apart. Therefore, there is an implied jurisdiction over the person because Congress is not going to go through the trouble of creating a complex set of rules and enforcement mechanisms if those rules will fall apart.


It should be made perfectly clear that I am making no assertions what-so-ever in regards to the Internal Revenue Code, other than I do not understand them. I have stated that I have read most of Title 26, or have attempted to in order to better understand this law, but I do not.

Again you claim that; "Granted, the statute if read literally imposes tax on the "income.", but it does not "literally" do so and instead "literally" imposes a tax upon "taxable income". Why do you keep asserting a tax has been imposed upon income?

What it seems to me is that the code has jurisdiction over "taxpayers" who earn "taxable income" in a "taxable year"...who's on first, what's on second and I don't know is on third. I do not know if this is correct or not, and for this reason I make no assertions.

I have shown a willingness to discuss this in more detail rather than just ask pertinent questions because of your proclivity to evade my questions and only answer those questions you choose and even then often times answering as if I had asked a different question.

It would be better, since I am not making any assertions, to stick with just asking you questions, but since this is not a trial and since you are not under oath and bound to answer my questions directly, I can not turn to the judge and ask him to make you answer my questions directly. Furthermore, asking you pertinent questions will take forever and a day, and discussing these issues might expedite the situation.

In terms of the "theory" that law must make sense and implied jurisdiction, it seems to me that if one signs under penalty of perjury that all the above is true and correct they have, in effect, admitted to being a "taxpayer" as specifically defined in the code and this then functions as prima facie evidence against this person. Wouldn't that be correct?



[edit on 9-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You are right in that section 1 defines "gross income" which is "income from whatever source derived. If you read on in the code "taxable income," upon which one's income tax liability is based, is calculated by taking the "gross income" and removing deductions.

Regulations do have the force of law. Under Chevron, which is one of the most underrated cases in the history of the SCOTUS, the treasury has broad power to make regulations which have the force of law. There are other cases before Chevron that have increased agencies powers, but Chevron pretty much puts the kybosh on anybody who tries to argue that an agency is working outside the statute.

You are right that Congress has the power to create statutes to impose taxes or do other things like regulate interstate commerce. In highly technical areas like Congress, environmental laws, securities law, and food and drug law it delegates a large amount of its rule making power to Agencies.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




In terms of the "theory" that law must make sense and implied jurisdiction, it seems to me that if one signs under penalty of perjury that all the above is true and correct they have, in effect, admitted to being a "taxpayer" as specifically defined in the code and this then functions as prima facie evidence against this person. Wouldn't that be correct?



[edit on 9-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]


The code does not require that person admit to being a taxpayer in order for the court to have jursidiction over the person. If you see Section 6651, it applies penalties to people who fail to file a return. Why is it necessary for the IRS to prove the individual is a "taxpayer" by submitting a copy of a signed tax return, if the IRC applies to people who fail to file returns?

Also keep in mind, the enforcement provisions of the IRC apply to "persons." I am assuming most of the individuals who would attempt to make the "I am not a taxpayer argument" are going to people. In fact, the code's definitions of "persons" (Seciton 7701(a)(1) includes "individuals" and entities.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You are right in that section 1 defines "gross income" which is "income from whatever source derived. If you read on in the code "taxable income," upon which one's income tax liability is based, is calculated by taking the "gross income" and removing deductions.

Regulations do have the force of law. Under Chevron, which is one of the most underrated cases in the history of the SCOTUS, the treasury has broad power to make regulations which have the force of law. There are other cases before Chevron that have increased agencies powers, but Chevron pretty much puts the kybosh on anybody who tries to argue that an agency is working outside the statute.

You are right that Congress has the power to create statutes to impose taxes or do other things like regulate interstate commerce. In highly technical areas like Congress, environmental laws, securities law, and food and drug law it delegates a large amount of its rule making power to Agencies.



First you are grossly oversimplifying the matter when you assert that "taxable income" is what ones income liability is based. It would first have to be established who does and who doesn't earn "taxable income" before anyone can base this "taxable income" as a liability. Secondly, there is also the matter of "adjusted gross income" and not just "gross income", and as you stated with removing deductions, this does not address those people who are not at all making any deductions.

Deductions are for "taxpayers" and have nothing to do with "non taxpayers" which is a term invented by the courts, (See Economy Pluming and Heating v. United States), and not me. One who is not liable for the tax to begin with would not be making any deductions. It must first be established how that person became liable for the tax before any tax collector can claim they are indeed liable. This is why I continue to ask pertinent questions such as what is the subject of the tax? Is it a direct tax or indirect tax.

Regulations are only treated by the courts as being legally binding as statutory law as long as the regulations are a reasonable interpretation of the the underlying statutes. Indeed, is this not what was ruled in Chevron? You supplied the case and I read it and I don't see anywhere in that ruling where it contradicts what I just stated. Furthermore, you claim that the Chevron ruling is one of the most underrated rulings in Supreme Court history, yet Lexis/Nexis claims this ruling has been cited more than 20,000 times in court opinions, law articles and second opinions, since the ruling was rendered.

What is the subject of the tax? Is it a direct tax or an indirect tax? Is it a tax on People, Property or Activities and where specifically is a tax laid upon that subject?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I just read the Economy Plumbing case. You are perhaps reading it to broadly. Economy Plumbing discusses what a "taxpayer" is not for the purposes of defining who has an obligation to pay taxes, but discusses who is a taxpayer for the purposes of claiming a refund.

In the Economy Plumbing case, a party to a joint venture sued the IRS for a refund for overpaid taxes. The other party to the joint venture was the "taxpayer" because the other party actually paid the taxes. Therefore, the suing party could not collect the refund for overpaid taxes because it was not a "taxpayer."



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I just read the Economy Plumbing case. You are perhaps reading it to broadly. Economy Plumbing discusses what a "taxpayer" is not for the purposes of defining who has an obligation to pay taxes, but discusses who is a taxpayer for the purposes of claiming a refund.

In the Economy Plumbing case, a party to a joint venture sued the IRS for a refund for overpaid taxes. The other party to the joint venture was the "taxpayer" because the other party actually paid the taxes. Therefore, the suing party could not collect the refund for overpaid taxes because it was not a "taxpayer."


Thank you my friend for taking the time to read that case. I am well aware of the facts of the case but am I reading it too broadly? Certainly no more broadly than you are reading Chevron. The Chevron case was in regards to how the EPA defined "stationary source", allowing a state broader application of the The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 in what became known as the "bubble concept". Chevron argued this "bubble concept" was contrary to law, and the Court held that the EPA's construction of statute and interpretation of "stationary source" was permissible and further held that as long as Congress has not directly spoken to the precise issue that such construction was permissible.

They were ruling narrowly on the EPA and made no mention of the IRS, and while they spoke to administrative agencies ability to interpret statutory construction not all ready directly spoken to by Congress, the ruling itself is just as narrow in its scope as Economy Plumbing and Heating is.

What is stated by the ruling of Economy Plumbing and Heating is this:

"The revenue laws are a code of system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to non taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is proscribed for non taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor the object of the revenue laws."

Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (Ct.Cl 1972)

Since Congress has spoken directly to what a "taxpayer" is and defined that term, not once but twice, both times making clear that a "taxpayer" is any person subject to the revenue laws, then it seems to me, in my humble opinion, that the Economy Plumbing and Heating ruling is wholly applicable here and the Chevron ruling as well but not in favor of the IRS as Congress has spoken directly to what a taxpayer is.

Thanks again for taking the time to read that case.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




In terms of the "theory" that law must make sense and implied jurisdiction, it seems to me that if one signs under penalty of perjury that all the above is true and correct they have, in effect, admitted to being a "taxpayer" as specifically defined in the code and this then functions as prima facie evidence against this person. Wouldn't that be correct?



[edit on 9-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]


The code does not require that person admit to being a taxpayer in order for the court to have jursidiction over the person. If you see Section 6651, it applies penalties to people who fail to file a return. Why is it necessary for the IRS to prove the individual is a "taxpayer" by submitting a copy of a signed tax return, if the IRC applies to people who fail to file returns?

Also keep in mind, the enforcement provisions of the IRC apply to "persons." I am assuming most of the individuals who would attempt to make the "I am not a taxpayer argument" are going to people. In fact, the code's definitions of "persons" (Seciton 7701(a)(1) includes "individuals" and entities.



It is strange that you would phrase this as you have, which is:

"The code does not require that person admit to being a taxpayer in order for the court to have jursidiction over the person."

Why would any law create a statute that states in order for the courts to have jurisdiction, one must first admit that they are liable and/or subject to the law? This is not how the law works and I believe you know that. You then point me to Section 6651 which states, (in part):

"(a) Addition to the tax

In case of failure—

(1) to file any return required under authority of subchapter A of chapter 61 (other than part III thereof),"

And 6651 points me towards subchapter A of chapter 61 which brings us back to "gross income"....wait, who's on second? No, who's on first, what's on second. Doh! In order to understand what "gross income is we have to go back to "taxable income" and then we are right back to the beginning and still don't know how it is we were made liable for the damn tax to begin with. What was it I or you did to make us liable for this tax? How did we come to earn "taxable income"?

As hard as you have tried, you have not shown through credible evidence that any tax has been laid upon income, either as a direct tax on property or through the activity of earning income. You ask:

"Why is it necessary for the IRS to prove the individual is a "taxpayer" by submitting a copy of a signed tax return, if the IRC applies to people who fail to file returns?"

And I answer you by stating that it is precisely because of Sections like 6651 where a failure to file a tax return or pay a tax is legislated and any infraction of this section brings with it steep fines, and/or a jail sentence, that those making such an accusation damn well better be able to prove that I or you are liable for this damn tax and/or subject to the law to begin with before just arbitrarily fining and incarcerating us as some kind of common criminal, that's why!

Isn't it true that section 6651 applies to people who are subject to the revenue laws and have been made liable for a tax?

It is ironic that you point to Section 7701 subchapter (a) (1) which defines person. Now you have gone from claiming that the tax is imposed upon the activities of earning income, to claiming the tax is imposed upon income directly, to implying by pointing to 7701 that the tax is actually a capitation tax. Which one is it? People, Property or Activities, and where specifically in the code has a tax been laid upon that subject? Just what the hell is the subject of this tax?

It always comes back to that, and before any intelligent discussion can be had in regards to this tax law, it must be known first, what is the subject of the tax?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You have to read the IRC as a whole, as courts do. You cannot look at one section in isolation, draw a conclusion, then claim there is an inconsistency because because some other section yields a conclusion which is inconsistent with the conclusion you reached from the first section. This is called harmonizing the law.

You are concluding section 61 does not make a person liable for income tax because the verbage of section 61 does not contain the word "person" or individual. Yet, later sections clearly authorize the law to impose penalties on people who fail to pay taxes. If you harmonize the sections, you will see that the law clearly permits the courts to impose penalties on people who fail to pay their taxes.

You may be getting high five's from some people on ATS about the arguments you are making, but the fact of the matter is you would get crushed if you tried to make these arguments in a real court. I would not even attempt to make these arguments because I could be subject to sanction and cause my clients to receive stiff fines for making a frivolous argument.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You have to read the IRC as a whole, as courts do. You cannot look at one section in isolation, draw a conclusion, then claim there is an inconsistency because because some other section yields a conclusion which is inconsistent with the conclusion you reached from the first section. This is called harmonizing the law.

You are concluding section 61 does not make a person liable for income tax because the verbage of section 61 does not contain the word "person" or individual. Yet, later sections clearly authorize the law to impose penalties on people who fail to pay taxes. If you harmonize the sections, you will see that the law clearly permits the courts to impose penalties on people who fail to pay their taxes.

You may be getting high five's from some people on ATS about the arguments you are making, but the fact of the matter is you would get crushed if you tried to make these arguments in a real court. I would not even attempt to make these arguments because I could be subject to sanction and cause my clients to receive stiff fines for making a frivolous argument.


I have done my very best to look at the law as a whole. However, as you have pointed out the law is contained in a five volume set which is problematic in itself. How can anyone be expected to understand this law?

That is what must be understood here! The only argument that I am making is that I don't understand this tax law! Because of this, in a court of law, I would not be making any other argument, just as, for all intents and purposes, I have not really made any arguments here. I have responded to your arguments. Your assertions only go to show, and it would possibly be the only other argument in I make in a court of law, which is, neither you, nor anyone else understands this law either!

I have made no conclusions about Section 61, you have and the conclusion you made is that this law defines "income" through Section 61, however, it does not define income, it defines "gross income". It is tantamount to arguing that anger has been defined by pointing to the definition of ire. Since ire is defined as anger then we know what anger is. A horse is horse of course, of course. This is not a definition.

You assert that if you harmonize the sections that I or anyone can clearly see that the law clearly permits the courts to impose penalties on people who fail to pay their taxes. There should be no doubt that if one has actually been made liable for a tax and is therefore subject to the revenue laws, that a penalty can be imposed. It should further be noted that for those who have been made liable for a tax, and are therefore subject to the revenue laws, that if they owe a tax and have failed to pay or refuse to pay, then a penalty should be imposed.

However, your arguments that all a prosecutor has to do is merely accuse a person of this crime and that in and of itself is enough to establish jurisdiction is ludicrous. It is tantamount to a prosecutor, who is prosecuting someone accused of murder and making this for an opening statement:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the law is very clear in this matter and states that murder is illegal. The defendant is the person who has been accused for murder and since we all know that murder is against the law then we will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is the defendant who has been charged with murder, so the only possible verdict you can reach is guilty."

And then with that the prosecutor concludes his case without ever presenting any evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty. No witnesses to link the defendant to the murder scene, no "smoking gun", no motive, no establishment of lack of alibi, just the accusation itself and pointing to the law as all the evidence that is needed. Where is the Due process of law in that?

You claim that in a court a law that I or someone else would be crushed if they or I or you tried to make such arguments. Again I must insist that in a court of law no arguments would be made other than no one understands the law. Furthermore, the only way that I or someone else would even be in such a situation is because the prosecutor ignored the challenges of jurisdiction just as did the tax collectors and now the judge is doing the same.

Even further, since it would not at all be prudent for someone who doesn't understand the charges against him or her, to plead. Then if it is at the point you describe, that could have only happened because the judge made a plea on the defendants behalf and entered a plea of not guilty. If a prosecutor brings up all the sections of the code that you have brought up and then makes the dubious arguments you have made and the defendant questions those arguments and a judge attempts to suppress the defendants cross examinations, this would be obstruction of justice among other crimes.

In fact, when looking to read what the law says about obstruction of justice, or acting under color of law, or malicious prosecution, or even impersonating a government official, one does not have to scour any five volume sets of law and these laws are clear, concise and easy to understand.

For the second time now you have claimed that other members of ATS might be giving me high fives for my question, and even though no other members have high fived me for these questions, I can only assume you have now said this twice because here in this thread, the questions I have asked and the challenges I have made to your assertions, leads you to believe that you are being crushed in this debate.

What is the subject of the tax? Is it People, Property, or Activities and where in the Code is a tax laid upon that subject?

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Is it true the US operates under admiralty law?

Thanks



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


I am no expert in Admiralty law, but from what I understand it still applies to incidents and transactions that happen out at sea. For the most part, the law most people deal with on tierra firma is not admiralty law.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join