It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes

page: 2
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 





It's not a crime to avoid taxes. It ought to be encouraged.


There is truth in this statement, particularly the second sentence, but a clarification is in order. Direct taxes cannot be avoided. Direct taxes come in the form of capitation and property taxes and if a direct tax has been levied there is no avoiding it. Indirect taxes can and often times should be avoided. In regards to the so called "Personal Income Tax" the question then becomes, is it a direct tax or an indirect tax?




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke



edit on 24-7-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



I wish there were better emoticons like the twitchy eyebrow but, did they pull off tax refunds while not paying taxes too? Are they all getting paid off by other people taxes, while not paying?

edit on 24-7-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


In regards to the so called "Personal Income Tax" the question then becomes, is it a direct tax or an indirect tax?


Well, since people actually earn the money, and that tax is collect from them - with no third party involved (like a merchant paying sales tax which he passes on in the price of his goods or services) it must be a direct tax.... or so it is contended by many.

The fruit of my labor was never supposed to be subject to a tax... according to the tradition and construct of our economy... but then... how would the government repay the debt it amasses for borrowing the currency we use?

Some contend that the so-called "market" determines the distribution of taxation.... which tells me that the (newer) construct has the "citizen" as a "wealth machine" - transferring human productivity into a revenue stream to offset fiat debt that government organizations legitimize by relinquishing their Constitutional duty to execute monetary policy for the people of the nation.

In 1913 (a year that will live in infamy) the 16th Amendment changed the rules that unequivocally mandated all taxes be directly apportioned to the citizens.... but this current tax scheme is quite literally and legally an indirect tax. That represented one of many 'damned blessings' which accompanied the establishment of the economic weapon system known as the federal reserve ... as well as their collection agency... the private corporation we call the IRS.

I say this in the hopes that you will correct any of my misconceptions... (I like the way you say it.
)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


In regards to the so called "Personal Income Tax" the question then becomes, is it a direct tax or an indirect tax?


Well, since people actually earn the money, and that tax is collect from them - with no third party involved (like a merchant paying sales tax which he passes on in the price of his goods or services) it must be a direct tax.... or so it is contended by many.


As I understand it, in the USA direct taxes are taxes upon things that exist - eg property, persons. So a poll tax (paid per head of population), or an estate tax (paid on land or house or both) are direct taxes.

In come tax is an indirect tax because it is in a transaction - you doing something and getting paid for it.

I'm pretty sure the legal precendent/argument was figured out by the end of the 19th century & there really is no question any more except by freemen and other tax fantasists.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
But they sure as hell enjoy the 1/3 of my gross and if I don't get it to them they come and seize my funds and sell my property.

Keep bleeding the middle class guys.

We have given and given and given some more.

There is nothing else to give when you pull down 50K and still be scratching coins for bills.

No recreation, No vacations, No new cars.

Just surviving.

Its time to shut down the monster.

What the hell are you people waiting for.

They are the few, we are the many.

No wonder they want our guns.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Yes indeed, many people do perceive the "income" tax as a direct tax upon property. In fact, this was how it was perceived by both Frank R. Brushaber who challenged the 16th Amendments Constitutionality in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) , as well as John R. Stanton who also challenged the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment in STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916) .

Both of the Plaintiff's argued the 16th Amendment was unconstitutional because it authorized a direct tax on income with regard to apportionment, when the Constitution clearly requires Congress to apportion all direct taxes. In both rulings, Chief Justice White rendered the opinions. What he held, and it is important to understand that judges have an obligation to read legislation first with an eye towards considering that it was written with the intent to be harmonious with the very Constitution that grants Congress the authority to legislate as well as the complete and plenary power of taxation, was that the 16th Amendment was indeed harmonious with the Constitution.


This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.


BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

The above quoted is a small part of an absurdly long paragraph and Chief Justice White is more verbose than even I - if you can imagine that. In this larger paragraph and context Justice White references several cases, most importantly Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company (Rehearing). In that Pollock ruling, an earlier attempt at income taxation from the Revenue Act of 1895, the income portion was struck down as unconstitutional because the SCOTUS of that Pollock ruling viewed that income tax as a direct tax on income without apportionment.

Some will argue that the 16th Amendment "overturned" the Pollock ruling, but as you can see for yourself by reading both the Brushaber and Stanton rulings is that it had clearly not been overturned, particularly since Justice White was relying upon legal principles from that Pollock ruling. Chief Justice White, having an opportunity in Brushaber to formulate his thoughts gets much clearer in the Stanton ruling:


But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.


STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

In Brushaber it is made clear that Congress had written in a way that was harmonious with the rule of apportionment, and in Stanton it is made clear that Congress did not grant themselves any new power of taxation by creating the 16th Amendment, but instead flexed their own muscles in response to the Pollock ruling, forcing the courts, and the People, to view any income tax not apportioned as an indirect tax upon some taxed activity and not as a direct tax on income. Income is merely used to measure how much is owed.

The question now, my friend, is what specified taxed activity are you involved in that would make you subject to the applicable revenue law and liable for this "income" tax?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Maxmars
 

The above quoted is a small part of an absurdly long paragraph and Chief Justice White is more verbose than even I - if you can imagine that. In this larger paragraph and context Justice White references several cases, most importantly Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company (Rehearing). In that Pollock ruling, an earlier attempt at income taxation from the Revenue Act of 1895, the income portion was struck down as unconstitutional because the SCOTUS of that Pollock ruling viewed that income tax as a direct tax on income without apportionment.


That is not really true - the case was only about "income tax" on income from property, given that property taxes were "direct" and so had to be "apportioned". this ruling applied to all income from interest, rents and dividends, since it held that taxing the income from these affected the value of the property they were derived from, and was therefoer "direct" and not "indirect"

It did not strike down all income tax as unconstitutional, and in fact restated that generally, income tax on wages and salaries is indirect, and is constitutional.


Some will argue that the 16th Amendment "overturned" the Pollock ruling, but as you can see for yourself by reading both the Brushaber and Stanton rulings is that it had clearly not been overturned, particularly since Justice White was relying upon legal principles from that Pollock ruling. Chief Justice White, having an opportunity in Brushaber to formulate his thoughts gets much clearer in the Stanton ruling:


But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.


STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

In Brushaber it is made clear that Congress had written in a way that was harmonious with the rule of apportionment, and in Stanton it is made clear that Congress did not grant themselves any new power of taxation by creating the 16th Amendment, but instead flexed their own muscles in response to the Pollock ruling, forcing the courts, and the People, to view any income tax not apportioned as an indirect tax upon some taxed activity and not as a direct tax on income. Income is merely used to measure how much is owed.


Again this is untrue and selective parsing. The 16th amendment did not grant any new powers because Congress DID already have the power to tax income.

What the 16th amendment did was to remove he need to apportion direct taxation - thus allowing income from rents, interest and dividends to be taxed in the same manner as other income.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

First of all, consider that the richest 20% of Americans take half our national income. That means the other 80% of us – the vast majority – are left to fight over the other half. No fairness problem there, at least not for Fleischer, the WSJ, and, I guess, the audience they pander to. Second, forget the history of the United States, especially that part about the beginning of the federal individual income tax when it was designed to be very progressive and tax only the richest Americans because of their inordinately higher capacity to pay than anyone else. The top few percent were supposed to pay 100%. Third, Fleischer wants to discuss fairness by looking only at who pays the taxes to the federal government and not also at who gets transfer payments from the federal government. How quaint. Real economists don’t do that if their goal is to assess the overall impact of the federal government on the distribution of income. Economists take into account both taxes paid to the government and transfer payments to citizens from the government. In fact the CBO Report Fleischer cites, which is prepared by trained economists and statisticians, addresses that issue squarely with a table that shows exactly that. It is called the after-tax income distribution. Had Fleischer wanted to see about the fairness of the federal government’s impact on the distribution of the national income between the top 20% and the rest of us, that is the table he would have focused on and quoted.


Economics as Sleaze (Blog): The Economic Crisis by Richard Wolff. Published on July 24, 2012


According to the CBO report (Figure 6 on page 15), the after-tax-and-transfers income of the richest 20% of Americans rose between 1979 and 2009 far more than that income for the other 80%. And the most spectacular rise was for the top 1%. That’s right, the impact of the federal government’s taxes and transfer payments made the distribution of income in the US more unequal across the period. That would be the real “fairness” issue. People like Fleischer have long been repeating how awful the federal government was for “punishing success” by “taking from the rich and giving to the poor.” They abuse government reports to support such delusions. The CBO report shows the actual US government doing exactly the opposite. What better cover for such behavior than a constant barrage of phony, sleazy economics claiming to prove otherwise?



Finally, a recent article in The Guardian (UK) reports on the work of James Henry, a former chief economist at the global consultancy firm McKinsey and an expert on tax havens. He documents trillions of dollars hidden by the richest people around the world in tax havens where they keep their wealth and income secret and thus beyond the reach of government statistics as well as well as taxes. Fleischer writes as if that neither exists nor matters to notions of “fairness”. Wrong again.


Yep check out Richard Wolff's viral video lecture "Capitalism Hits the Fan"
edit on 24-7-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





It did not strike down all income tax as unconstitutional, and in fact restated that generally, income tax on wages and salaries is indirect, and is constitutional.


This is a strawman and an astonishing one given that you quoted precisely what I said, which was in more simpler terms that the SCOTUS in Pollock struck down the income portion of the Revenue Act of 1895. Why would did you read something else that was not said?



Again this is untrue and selective parsing. The 16th amendment did not grant any new powers because Congress DID already have the power to tax income.


It is true and again you make yet another strawman argument. I didn't bother to point out that Congress all ready have the power to tax income because it is implicit in what I did quote and expressly said in the links I provided, and anyone who knows the history of income taxation knows full well an income tax was successfully levied to pay for the costs of the Civil War. Why are you claiming I have made these arguments I did not make.

I said what I said and did not say what I did not say! What are you up to? Your next prevarication explains what you're up to:




What the 16th amendment did was to remove he need to apportion direct taxation


This is absolutely not true!


Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.


BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

It has been settled and your assertion is wholly without foundation!


edit on 24-7-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: Added Brushaber Link



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





It did not strike down all income tax as unconstitutional, and in fact restated that generally, income tax on wages and salaries is indirect, and is constitutional.


This is a strawman and an astonishing one given that you quoted precisely what I said, which was in more simpler terms that the SCOTUS in Pollock struck down the income portion of the Revenue Act of 1895. Why would did you read something else that was not said?


Because you conveniently forgot something else you said:


...because the SCOTUS of that Pollock ruling viewed that income tax as a direct tax on income without apportionment.


this is not true - it did NOT strike down that portion because of this. It struck down that portion because an income tax on dividends, rents and interest were direct - NOT that income tax was direct, as you said.




Again this is untrue and selective parsing. The 16th amendment did not grant any new powers because Congress DID already have the power to tax income.


It is true and again you make yet another strawman argument. I didn't bother to point out that Congress all ready have the power to tax income because it is implicit in what I did quote and expressly said in the links I provided, and anyone who knows the history of income taxation knows full well an income tax was successfully levied to pay for the costs of the Civil War. Why are you claiming I have made these arguments I did not make.

I said what I said and did not say what I did not say! What are you up to? Your next prevarication explains what you're up to:




What the 16th amendment did was to remove he need to apportion direct taxation


This is absolutely not true!


Quite right - any my apologies for not writing this correctly.

What it did was to remove the need to apportion that part of direct taxation that consists of income tax on dividends rent and interest. It did so by defining all income tax as indirect taxation, regardless of source, whereas Pollock had split income tax into 2 parts - one being direct taxation, and one which was indirect taxation.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad upheld the 16th amendment and the Revenue Act of 1913 that had made this change.

I hope that clarifies both matters for you.
edit on 24-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





this is not true - it did NOT strike down that portion because of this. It struck down that portion because an income tax on dividends, rents and interest were direct - NOT that income tax was direct, as you said.


Again with the strawman and of something I said you quoted directly. Go back and read what I said very carefully. You have not contradicted a thing I said.

Now what needs to be clarified is what specified taxed activities have been made liable for this so called "income tax". The act of earning income is not what has been taxed. What is it that makes a janitor liable for this tax? What is it that makes an architect liable for this tax? Where in the tax code is it made clear that janitors, architects, waitresses, cooks, dishwashers and countless other professions have been made liable. Show us the statute of the tax code that imposes a tax on any of these professions. If you can do this then we get closer to clarification.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Oh dear - I thought for a second yuo were intersted in a reasonable discussino


As you well know the tax code defines types of incomes that are taxable rather than jobs.

26 USC Part I - DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE INCOME, ETC.

specifically gross incoem is defined in section 61 of the reference -


(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1)Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

(2)Gross income derived from business;

(3)Gains derived from dealings in property;

(4)Interest;

(5)Rents;

(6)Royalties;

(7)Dividends;

(8)Alimony and separate maintenance payments;

(9)Annuities;

(10)Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;

(11)Pensions;

(12)Income from discharge of indebtedness;

(13)Distributive share of partnership gross income;

(14)Income in respect of a decedent; and

(15)Income from an interest in an estate or trust.


and taxable income is defined in Section 63 as, in part and generally:


(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
All this proves even further to me, is that there should be a nice simple flat tax with no deductions. 10% flat no deductions easy to do and no excuses on difficult math. Thats it pay 10% and you are good, the US corporate tax rate is to high for most businesses just not the connected ones .



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





As you well know the tax code defines types of incomes that are taxable rather than jobs.


Reasonable? Why are you continually rewording things to suit your purpose? The code does not define "types" of incomes it plays a tautological game of circularity. Taxable income is defined as Gross income or Adjusted gross income, but before we get into further definitions we must first understand why we even care that Taxable income is being defiend at all:


26 USC § 1 - Tax imposed


26 USC Section 1 is what has imposed the tax and that tax has been imposed upon "taxable income". Your attempt to point to a definition and present it as the answer to how any person has had a tax imposed upon them is no where near reasonable. All the definitions of "taxable income" aside, how was it that any person came to earn "taxable income" to begin with? Take note how Section 1 of the tax code begins:


(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—


Married individuals filing joint returns must all ready know they've been made liable for this tax, otherwise why would they be filing? Where in Section 1 does it explain how any person was made liable to begin with? That doesn't seem to be too clear in section 1 which speaks only to people who are all ready presumed liable. Where in the code have they actually been made liable?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





As you well know the tax code defines types of incomes that are taxable rather than jobs.


Reasonable? Why are you continually rewording things to suit your purpose?


In what way did I redefine anything?

You asked where in hte tax codes it says that various professions are liable to tax. I pointed out that jobs are not listed as taxable - types of income are what is taxed.


The code does not define "types" of incomes it plays a tautological game of circularity. Taxable income is defined as Gross income or Adjusted gross income, but before we get into further definitions we must first understand why we even care that Taxable income is being defiend at all:


26 USC § 1 - Tax imposed


26 USC Section 1 is what has imposed the tax and that tax has been imposed upon "taxable income". Your attempt to point to a definition and present it as the answer to how any person has had a tax imposed upon them is no where near reasonable.


lol - so now reasonablness is part of your argument?? - sorry - I missed that bit. I thought you had asked why one has to pay tax, and so I linked to the law that says wh you have to pay tax.

And you have linked back to the same sections as me, which say what taxable income is, why you have to pay tax, etc. and are trying to tell me that all that doesn't tell anyone why they have to pay tax, and doesnt' tell them what their taxable income is??


Somehow you seem to think that -


(1)Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

(2)Gross income derived from business;

(3)Gains derived from dealings in property; (etc)


are not types of income?? OK - you can choose to do that ...... and as a result I can view you as a nut job.

That's plenty of clarity for me!



edit on 24-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





In what way did I redefine anything?


This is precisely what I am talking about. I say this:




Why are you continually rewording things to suit your purpose?


And to underscore my point, you respond with this:




In what way did I redefine anything?


It is interesting because this is similar to the game of semantics the code plays.




are not types of income?? OK - you can choose to do that ...... and as a result I can view you as a nut job.


Of course, you've deflected entirely with your post and avoided the obvious. How was it that people came to earn "taxable income"? That is a very important part of law. You cannot point to a definition of "taxable income" and declare that is how people became liable. The statute imposing the tax must clearly state what the tax is being imposed upon. "Taxable income" is used for a very specific reason. Congress can not use the word income in the code because they failed to define the word in the 16th Amendment.

You can view me as a nut job if you wish, but I assure you, you have no lawful authority to make me liable for this tax. You are entitled to your opinion, as nutty as it is, but it ain't the law. Congress cannot make some one liable for a tax through a definition of a word. They cannot broadly impose a tax on any and all income by imposing a tax on "taxable income" that becomes "gross income" or "adjusted gross income" which comes with a "taxable year' and a taxable year is defined as that fiscal period of a "taxpayer" and lo and behold, now we're getting somewhere.

The tax code is insane, and anyone claiming they understand it and pretend it is sane...well calling me a nut job is laughable and contrary to popular belief, the inmates are not running the asylum and you don't understand that tax code any more than anyone else does. You are merely pretending to do so. How sane is that?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
[
You can view me as a nut job if you wish, but I assure you, you have no lawful authority to make me liable for this tax.


Of course not - I am not an officer of the court nor am I congress.


You are entitled to your opinion, as nutty as it is, but it ain't the law. Congress cannot make some one liable for a tax through a definition of a word. They cannot broadly impose a tax on any and all income by imposing a tax on "taxable income" that becomes "gross income" or "adjusted gross income" which comes with a "taxable year' and a taxable year is defined as that fiscal period of a "taxpayer" and lo and behold, now we're getting somewhere.


I look forward to hearing how you do in court with that when you take on IRS and people who do ahve lawful authority to make you liable for this tax.


The tax code is insane, and anyone claiming they understand it and pretend it is sane...well calling me a nut job is laughable and contrary to popular belief, the inmates are not running the asylum and you don't understand that tax code any more than anyone else does. You are merely pretending to do so. How sane is that?


I dont' believe I understand the tax code better than anyone else - I understand it to say I have to pay my taxes - I'm pretty sure that is the normal level of understanding among normal people.

And I wouldn't even argue agaisnt you when you say the code is insane.

But since the IRS considers arguments that the tax law is not constitutional or not legal as frivolous, and since the courts support that position I hope you are ready to be lapped with an instant $5,000 fine for even raising any of them.
edit on 24-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Of course not - I am not an officer of the court nor am I congress.


An officer of the court has no lawful or legal authority to make anyone liable for the tax either, and this is what I mean when I say you don't understand the tax code anymore than anyone else does, including any officer of the court or Congress.




I look forward to hearing how you do in court with that when you take on IRS and people who do ahve lawful authority to make you liable for this tax.


The IRS has the authority to summon a taxpayer:


An officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service may not contact any person other than the taxpayer with respect to the determination or collection of the tax liability of such taxpayer without providing reasonable notice in advance to the taxpayer that contacts with persons other than the taxpayer may be made.


A "taxpayer" is defined not once, but twice. In 26 USC 7701:


(14) Taxpayer The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.


As well as 26 USC 1313


(b) Taxpayer Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.


This, of course, leads us back to my question. How is it people are made subject to this applicable revenue law and/or liable for a tax. How have people become a "taxpayer" to begin with.

You're not going to deflect again and answer: "well, I'd like to see you in court, blah blah, blah," are you?




But since the IRS considers arguments that the tax law is not constitutional or not legal as frivolous, and since the courts support that position I hope you are ready to be lapped with an instant $5,000 fine for even raising any of them.


Again with the strawman argument. I have not argued that the tax code is unconstitutional or not legal. You are only damaging your own arguments by relying so heavily on logical fallacy.


edit on 24-7-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
While you two argue who the hell a taxpayer is...i thinks it would be time better served counting crows or other weighty matters....
The plain truth is that the rich pay far LESS than their fair share.....WHY?
BECAUSE THEY RUN THE WHOLE COUNTRY THOUGH THEIR CONGRESSIONL AND SENATE CRONIES!!!
The congres can indulge in insider trading legally!!!
Figure it out we are getting one helluva screwing!
Go buy some ammpo and lets let er rip!
The slime need to be hung from the next amp post.....and if we wait too long to revolt, The goverment will have us all survieled and hog tied....there will be no free speech...
There will be no freedom of any kind unless they say so.......




top topics



 
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join