Affordable Health Care Act: Let the Ex-Post Games Begin!

reply to post by Deetermined

"Tax protester history in the United States"

en.wikipedia.org...

They'll probably be updating the description from frivolous and criminal to terrorist pretty soon. About the last place I'd go for this kind of information is wikipedia.

www.warresisters.org...

www.nwtrcc.org...

www.utne.com...

reply to post by frazzle


I don't see that working either based on one of your links...

Summarized below are a few war tax resistance methods. For more information see the book War Tax Resistance: A Guide to Withholding Your Support from the Military or talk with a war tax counselor. The probability of collection or prosecution varies among the methods; all, except #3, are illegal.

You should study the methods and consequences thoroughly before embarking on these types of resistance.

1) File and refuse to pay your taxes. This involves filling out a 1040 form and refusing to pay either a token amount of your taxes (e.g. $5, $10, $50), or a percentage representing a “military” portion (see the federal spending pie chart), or the total amount (since a portion of whatever is paid goes to the military). See “Getting Started” on our War Tax Boycott website.

2) Stay out of the system and refuse to file a tax return. See “To File or Not To File A Tax Return”

3) Earn less than the taxable income. This can involve having such a low income that you are not required to file federal income tax returns (approximately $9,350 in 2010), or it can mean filing and taking deductions so that no income tax is owed. See “Low Income/Simple Living as War Tax Resistance”

4) Resist the local telephone excise tax. The federal telephone excise tax historically has been related to wars and excessive military spending. It appears on local-only phone bills. Refusing to pay this tax is a low risk method of war tax resistance.

See the Hang Up On War website.

Originally posted by frazzle

Wow, I found the docs I was looking for. That almost never happens. I am copying this from documents I've had for many years, but how one would use this in a court setting is anyone's guess. I hope it helps.

Federal Register, Tuesday, Sept. 7, 1943, s404.104, pg. 12,267: Employee: "the term employee specifically includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a State, territory or political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any more or more of the foregoing."

"S3401(c) Employee -- for purposes of this chapter, the term employee includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State or any political subdivision thereof, of the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term also includes an officer of a corporation."

What is your interpretation of this, Frazzle?

Are you trying to say that only federal and state employees along with corporate officers can be jailed for tax evasion and the rest of us only have to worry about having our bank accounts seized and having liens thrown on our properties unless, of course, we filed a fraudulent return?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


No you are not getting an additional tax. You become disqualified from receiving a tax credit. Whether or not people should be getting tax credits that exceed what they pay into the system is entirely a separate issue altogether. You will not be paying any additional tax than what you are already paying now if you do not carry insurance you simple become disqualified for a tax credit.

The entire thing has been a scam I would have rather it been a single payer system. Because all this is is a gimmie to the Insurance industry. But at the very least it should drive competition between insurance companies lowering premiums much in the way Auto Insurance has evolved, where price and service are how they will garner new customers. Making it more affordable to more people than it currently is.

reply to post by Deetermined


The SCOTUS ruled yesterday that the IRS can't do squat in placing liens or attaching anything, if you don't pay the Obamacare *TAX*.

It was the back door escape Judge John Roberts gave us, and also defanged the Obama *mandate*.

Des

reply to post by KeliOnyx

You will not be paying any additional tax than what you are already paying now if you do not carry insurance you simple become disqualified for a tax credit.

What about all of the "other taxes" that were thrown into the bill?

The one that says starting this year employees will have the health care premiums paid by their employer thrown onto their W-2's in order for the individual to pay taxes on it as though it was additional income?

Or the one that changes the requirements on deducting medical expenses, starting 2014? Anyone claiming medical expenses as an itemized deduction on their return will have to exceed 10% of their adjusted gross income instead of the 7.5% that's currently in place.

Why didn't our leaders inform us of these things before they passed Obamacare?

I wish this was just a health care issue, but it clearly is not.

More than what I've stated has been thrown in to disguise a revenue increase.

reply to post by Destinyone


That's true about the Obamacare tax, but we were talking about personal income taxes in general.

Originally posted by Deetermined


What is your interpretation of this, Frazzle?

Are you trying to say that only federal and state employees along with corporate officers can be jailed for tax evasion and the rest of us only have to worry about having our bank accounts seized and having liens thrown on our properties unless, of course, we filed a fraudulent return?

I'm not really trying to say anything, that is what the documents say.

The judges and juries are the ones who decide who goes to jail and who does not. Now keep in mind where the judges salaries come from and who gives the orders of "what the law is" to the juries. All three branches of government are corrupt to the bone.

Had a guy tell me one time that if you want to get out of any charges, when they take you into court, just point at the fringed flag and ask "Is that the flag of the court" and they'll toss you out the back door before they'll answer the question. Don't know if that's true because I never had an opportunity to try it.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by frazzle

 

I don't see that working either based on one of your links...

Summarized below are a few war tax resistance methods. For more information see the book War Tax Resistance: A Guide to Withholding Your Support from the Military or talk with a war tax counselor. The probability of collection or prosecution varies among the methods; all, except #3, are illegal.

You should study the methods and consequences thoroughly before embarking on these types of resistance.

1) File and refuse to pay your taxes. This involves filling out a 1040 form and refusing to pay either a token amount of your taxes (e.g. $5, $10, $50), or a percentage representing a “military” portion (see the federal spending pie chart), or the total amount (since a portion of whatever is paid goes to the military). See “Getting Started” on our War Tax Boycott website.

2) Stay out of the system and refuse to file a tax return. See “To File or Not To File A Tax Return”

3) Earn less than the taxable income. This can involve having such a low income that you are not required to file federal income tax returns (approximately $9,350 in 2010), or it can mean filing and taking deductions so that no income tax is owed. See “Low Income/Simple Living as War Tax Resistance”

4) Resist the local telephone excise tax. The federal telephone excise tax historically has been related to wars and excessive military spending. It appears on local-only phone bills. Refusing to pay this tax is a low risk method of war tax resistance.

See the Hang Up On War website.

One of the reasons no one ever wins in tax court is because so few people understand the code or how to present a case. And I can promise I'd fall into that catagory. Do a search on Joe Bannister, he was a former tax investigator who quit the agency, rebelled against the IRS and did it the right way.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by KeliOnyx

 

I wish this was just a health care issue, but it clearly is not.

It's not at all, the ACA is merely a Trojan Horse to turn the U.S. into a command and control economy.
When BO said he was going to fundamentally change the United States, people should have took him at his word.

Remember November!

Now I've asked my employer before if I could forego the coverage they provide, but they declined me that option... so I'm a taxpayer and signed the W-4. But I take care of myself and never go to the hospital like someone else mentioned before.

JPZ - So are you going to sit back and watch people challenge this in court? Are you planning on challenging this yourself? Isn't it possible to challenge this as a large group? I don't know much about the tax code, but I sure as hell know I believe it's NOT my "duty" to be a sucker and to pay personal income tax and I want out. I've been talking about civil disobedience for some time now. I could really use the 30% taken out of my every check.

What's your plan?

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Deetermined

 

The SCOTUS ruled yesterday that the IRS can't do squat in placing liens or attaching anything, if you don't pay the Obamacare *TAX*.

It was the back door escape Judge John Roberts gave us, and also defanged the Obama *mandate*.

Well, hold on there my friend. That's not quite true. Please continue reading below for my explanation.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It should be noted, and in deference to those wascally wabbits we call Congwess, and likely why subsection (g) is also pointed to in the ruling, that:

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure. (B) Limitations on liens and levies The Secretary shall not— (i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

While a "penalty" has been placed on a failure to comply with the "individual mandate", or "shared responsibility payment", this "penalty comes with no criminal prosecution, nor any lien on any property. Why?

Long time no chat, my brother JPZ! Life has been... well, life! I couldn't wait to get the opportunity to read your take on this ruling. But, I do have to offer a bit of info on the above excerpt, from your OP.

That clause, even cited by Chief Justice Roberts in his opinion, is being tossed around quite often now, in attempt to quell some of the angst surrounding the individual mandate. Unfortunately, it floats much like the proverbial lead balloon. What everyone seems to omit is the phrase immediately preceding that clause, in the Act.

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law"

Sounds great, doesn't it? Sounds reassuring, doesn't it? Unfortunately, that's not how the Congressional Research Service sees it. For those who don't know, the CRS provides guidance to members of congress on "the Supreme Court’s approach to statutory interpretation". They have a bit to say about that particular phrase, linked below. But, for brevity's sake, I'll quote a passage which pretty much sums it up.

“We have repeatedly held that the phrase ‘notwithstanding any other law’ is not always construed literally . . . and does not require the agency to disregard all otherwise applicable laws.”

Did you see that? "...does not require the agency to disregard all otherwise applicable laws." One more time "...does NOT require..." And again "...NOT..." So, ask yourself "What might the IRS do, when tasked with collecting the "taxes" imposed on those who evade the health care tax law?" And, even though Roberts cited the clause, you can count on every clause of the act to be challenged, as they are implemented.

I know this is aside from the intended direction of your thread and that it has no bearing on whether or not a person is subject to any tax, direct or indirect. I just thought this was a good place to bring this up, especially in light of Destinyone's previous reply, and only offer it on a statutory basis.

CRS Report to Congress : Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends Specifically, page 35.

Wow, didn't intend to kill the thread...

reply to post by WTFover


I've been lax in replying to people in this thread. Sorry. In your earlier post, were you suggesting that the IRS will use some other section of the code to put teeth on the "collection" of the "shared responsibility payment"?

I do believe that the challenges for this bill are far from over, and the only thing that will stop ex post challenges is Congress just repealing the Act.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Since the health care act added sections to the IRC, they will be able to use the existing IRC statutes for applying punishments for failure to pay the taxes. Like the Congressional Research Service publication says, adding the text "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" is just smoke and mirrors. The phrase is not binding. So, even though folks may not be able to be punished under the health care act, there are other statutes available.

reply to post by WTFover


This is why the direction I have taken is to urge people to take a hard look at the IRC (Title 26) and the CFR pursuant to that code and reevaluate their liability and if they are truly subject to the revenue law.

I've been thinking about it - though I want health care - need it personally, lol - I'm not that comfortable with a tax the govt can put on you for NOT doing something.

That's not a tax, that's a fine, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the right of the IRS levying fines without due process of law. They already are a law unto themselves, practically if not officially.

Anyway, it seems like the whole thing was based on the idea that sin taxes are OK.

Make sin taxes illegal and you could attack this again. I just don't think the govt. should be able to compel behavior outside of normal legal processes - jail or fine after legal proceedings for each individual accused.

I'm not a lawyer though. If I were though, that's the angle I'd look at.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Certainly. Then there are the countless suits which will follow, as each aspect of this monstrosity is implemented. 1900 pages of garbage will likely produce as many suits. The ex-post games is a fitting term.

reply to post by WTFover


My concern, even before the ruling was rendered, was that by challenging the legislation in an ex ante manner and demanding a ruling would leave the nation with the impression that the matter is settled. I think it is important to keep alive the understanding that this ruling is only Act I.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Absolutely. It is necessary we continue to encourage people to learn about every aspect of the Act. My Facebook friends are likely to abandon me, because I post something about it every day. I had one the other day tell me she thought people were only concentrating on the "bad things" about the law and ignoring the "good things". I told her, we could argue about those things all day long, but that she seemed to be only concentrating on the things she thinks are "good" for her. I ended the conversation by asking why she felt it necessary to rely on government for those things, knowing they were at the expense of taking from others. I left her with the Bastiat quote

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.