quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:

quote:

$391 adjusted gross income?

Sounds Schiffty...

Ever consider the possibility that the word "income" in a legal, Constitutional sense may have a different meaning than "all that comes in"? Reading the law and the relevant court decisions will help clarify that for you. Not easy and takes time. You could start here if you are so inclined: Shrinking Leviathan

__________________________________________

So why not just explain it as best you can instead of trying to sell the book?

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
So why not just explain it as best you can instead of trying to sell the book?

He wants you to leave him be.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
So why not just explain it as best you can instead of trying to sell the book?

He wants you to leave him be.

Actually, I am just very busy.

I may be wrong but to date the facts and the actions of both the IRS and VA DOR do not support that contention. I do know that I am a stubborn Virginian when it comes to Liberty.

I am not trying to sell the book. It is simply the best description I have found regarding how taxation works in America. In addition, all the important stuff can be fairly easily verified through other government or academic sources. You do not have to take anyone's word for anything. In fact, it is the verification that takes time.

If you want to understand "income" in a Constitutional sense it helps if you step back and take a macro view of taxation. The Constitution mentions the two great classes of taxes: Direct and Indirect. The "income" tax falls into the "indirect" bucket. This has been stated multiple times by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you want to really exercise your brain, read this decision from 1916: Brushaber v Union Pacific It clarifies what the 16th Amendment actually did. I don't recommend this as a first exercise since Justice White has a somewhat convoluted way of expressing the courts findings. I know I had to read it and mark it up multiple times.

The most concise description I can provide of Constitutional "income" is derived from the testimony of Morris Hubbard in March of 1943 and published in the Congressional Record. I believe he was with the Treasury Department at the time:



Unfortunately, I don't have the entire testimony handy but as recall it is a very enlightening read.

Mr. Hubbard states in pertinent part: "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax." So, the real question is, specifically which "certain activities and privileges" am I involved in that produce federal excise taxable income? One clue to a general class of excise taxable income is in the Brushaber case cited above. The Union Pacific railroad was created by Congress in 1862. Naturally, Congress as the creator can tax any income (get their cut) from any income it produces.

There is no list of such activities or privileges that I am aware of. Each individual needs to figure that out based on their knowledge, activities and any federal privileges they may be involved in. After all, it is a Federal tax. Each individual also needs to know how to legally correct the record, where appropriate.

Regarding states, at least in the states I have lived in, they are all tied to federal income.

Regarding sovereignty, I see it the same way Newt Gingrich does: Newt 2011 NRA

I did not get the sense that the members think he is nuts but maybe I missed it.

Got to run....

____________________________________

You're right - I got this in the mail today just from having read the thread. I guess it's just an attempt at a negotiated settlement to keep me from asking for more.

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:

(blah blah blah, quote some shit wildly out of context, make unwarranted and unsupported arguments based quasi-legalish sounding junk, faulty reasoning, fairy tales, and misunderstanding...)

You do realize that the gobbledygook you're spouting ain't got jack, shit, or jackshit to do with the 1986 IRC, right? Or are you just going to spout more about how you've uncovered the sacred mysteries of the true meaning of "income" and the rest of us are blind morons?



This guy, right here, is why you don't take legal advice from the internet, folks.

The IRS is one of those things you don’t poke. I think we should have a flat tax, but I pay my taxes.

This is quite possibly the worst advice I've ever seen posted. I'm not going to poke the bear any longer, just to leave it at:

If you follow this advice, then you deserve the lengthy prison sentence and I won't have any sympathy.

I just wonder if he gets a kickback from book sales... Maybe a bonus for signing people up? Or if this is like some type of Sovereign Citizen Amway.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Whenever I hear one of these theories, I'm reminded of this guy...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff

Thanks for posting that. I've been trying to remember that name since this thread started.

[/QUOTE]
I am not trying to sell the book. It is simply the best description I have found regarding how taxation works in America. In addition, all the important stuff can be fairly easily verified through other government or academic sources. You do not have to take anyone's word for anything. In fact, it is the verification that takes time. QUOTE]

Question - Using these methods as described in the book resulted in a significant prison sentence for the author. Why do you think it will be different for you?

AFAIK, espousing anti-tax theories is not a crime. USING anti-tax theories to try and avoid paying taxes is a crime.

Of course if the IRS finds someone who espouses these type of theories, they will crawl so far up the espouser's ass looking for tax cheating they'll be able to evaluate the subjects dental work.

Someone is about to learn a valuable lesson about the penal code, in a Constitutional sense.

Man, you guys are harshing my buzz! Now instead of dreaming about all that money the IRS is going to refund me I’ll have to go back to dreaming about all the money I’m going to win in those lotteries I don’t buy tickets for. (Why would I as it doesn’t appreciably raise the odds of winning.). Sigh...

Maybe homedude is right, maybe all this mumbojumbo is how things are supposed to be.

'Course that means a thimble-full of rat jizz to the Tax Man and his ninjas. There's the way things ought to be, and then there's the way things are.

quote:

There's the way things ought to be, and then there's the way things are.

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
I am not trying to sell the book. It is simply the best description I have found regarding how taxation works in America.

If you want to really exercise your brain, read this decision from 1916:

The most concise description I can provide of Constitutional "income" is derived from the testimony of Morris Hubbard in March of 1943

The current IRS Code is from 1986. The Code is large, complex, and convoluted. It requires a lot of work to understand. Now there's a remote chance that the Lost Horizons book correctly describes small parts of the Code -- its hard rules and its gray areas. But probably not. I doubt that a decision from 1916 has any current bearing on the 1986 Code. I can pretty much guarantee that testimony from 1943 is worth dog doo. In order for these two items to be included in the current Code, they would be referenced in the Code's footnotes. I won't take the time to paw through the Code for these references, but suggest you give it a try.

I have a little experience with pushing the limits of the 1986 Code. Many moons ago, I worked for a company which needed inexpensive financing for a substantial factory expansion. Substantial work with attorneys and tax specialists ultimately resulted in our issuing millions of dollars in tax-exempt private activity bonds, which financed the land, building, and equipment. The cost savings in interest expense to our corporation amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

I spent many weeks researching the tax & legal aspects of the bonds -- as there were sticky points related to the size of the bond issue, our particular use of the funds, and our off-shore backing. I often read the Code in bed, only to wake up in the middle of the night with the Code and its interpretations laying on my chest. Ruh-roh, that section had to be re-read.

Finally, the attorneys and I found a way to do it, all up-and-up. The IRS was OK with what we did. But in the following year the rules for Private Activity Bonds were changed, which eliminated what essentially was a loop-hole for us to obtain low-cost financing. Our lead attorney congratulated me -- he stated that few businessmen help push the IRS into revising the tax code during their careers.

In the following years we received regular audits for income taxes, both federal and state. Sales & use tax audits from city/county/district/state authorities became like clockwork. Even the county assessor paid us regular visits, to review our property taxes.

My employer liked how I assisted in making the factory a success. They gave me a raise -- and of course, my salary and all raises were income taxable. I received a few stock options -- which were ultimately income taxable. I received contributions to my savings plan -- which will ultimately be income taxable, upon my retirement. They paid for most of my post-graduate studies at Wharton -- which was income taxable.

****
It's your choice in how to deal with the IRS and other taxing authorities. Materiality often plays a roll in whom the IRS audits.

Do as you wish with your own. Attempting to promote questionable practices to others is something different....

Better than the new Disney+.

Think of the IRS organization as a "pipeline". Taxpayers send correspondence, forms, checks, cash, CDs, sovereign citizen letters etc. When those items are received they are opened by clerical folks. Then they are separated into "refund/no refund", correspondence, forms like the 1040 for personal stuff and 1120, 1120S, 720, etc. and enter the pipeline to go to those who know how to evaluate what's to be done with each document.

So for the most part, the process is compartmentalized by the type of form or department. However, the one thing EVERYONE learns about is to pay attention to the income vs. refund. Even the clerks who simply open and sort the mail.

If the income is say, $23,000 and the refund requested is $144,000, those forms are immediately sent to a special area for review before proceeding through the process. Of course it's possible they make it through without being caught. Maybe even more than once. Rare, but I suppose it could happen.

But sooner or later...

Gecko45, is that you?

I apologize for disturbing your peace and the delay in responding. I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in probably the most epic flaming thread in SigForum history!

The fact is that the taxing power of Congress has not changed since 1787. It is plenary but does have to conform with the rules laid down in the U.S. Constitution. At least that is what the U.S.Supreme Court has concluded.

For the curios who deal with 1099’s of various flavors, here is the definition of the legal term “trade or business” applicable to the income tax:

"26 USC 7701: Definitions
Text contains those laws in effect on February 18, 2020
From Title 26-INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F-Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79-DEFINITIONS
Definitions:

§7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-

(26)Trade or business

The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.”

And the definition of the legal term “includes" used within title 26:

"(c)Includes and including

The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."

26 USC 7701

Here is a slightly different wording capturing the same concept from Title 27 (Intoxicating Liquors):

“The terms “includes and including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class;”

27 CFR 26.11
27 CFR 72.11

Think a bit. If the term “trade or business” means every common business in the USA (e.g. plumbers, electricians, building contractors, consultants, doctors, etc.), why not just be very clear and state: “The terms “includes and “including” when used in this title are not limiting.”? In law and regulations, every word is suppose to have a purpose, at least that is what I was taught by Uncle Sugar.

For now, I will go about my work, file my tax returns based on my first-hand knowledge and experience over the years, and pay all taxes that I am demonstrably liable for.

God willing, I will check back in a year or so to let you know if the U.S. or Virginia state governments have taken any actions inconsistent with my understanding. Obviously, if the guys in black helicopters or suburbans show up, I may be delayed.

Leavemebe - out

______________________________________________________________________________

Whoooooooooooooo boy.

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
I apologize for disturbing your peace and the delay in responding. I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in probably the most epic flaming thread in SigForum history!

The fact is that the taxing power of Congress has not changed since 1787. It is plenary but does have to conform with the rules laid down in the U.S. Constitution. At least that is what the U.S.Supreme Court has concluded.

For the curios who deal with 1099’s of various flavors, here is the definition of the legal term “trade or business” applicable to the income tax:

"26 USC 7701: Definitions
Text contains those laws in effect on February 18, 2020
From Title 26-INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F-Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79-DEFINITIONS
Definitions:

§7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-

(26)Trade or business

The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.”

And the definition of the legal term “includes" used within title 26:

"(c)Includes and including

The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."

26 USC 7701

Here is a slightly different wording capturing the same concept from Title 27 (Intoxicating Liquors):

“The terms “includes and including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class;”

27 CFR 26.11
27 CFR 72.11

Think a bit. If the term “trade or business” means every common business in the USA (e.g. plumbers, electricians, building contractors, consultants, doctors, etc.), why not just be very clear and state: “The terms “includes and “including” when used in this title are not limiting.”? In law and regulations, every word is suppose to have a purpose, at least that is what I was taught by Uncle Sugar.

For now, I will go about my work, file my tax returns based on my first-hand knowledge and experience over the years, and pay all taxes that I am demonstrably liable for.

God willing, I will check back in a year or so to let you know if the U.S. or Virginia state governments have taken any actions inconsistent with my understanding. Obviously, if the guys in black helicopters or suburbans show up, I may be delayed.

Leavemebe - out

Do you realize that nothing that you wrote makes a damn bit of sense or provides any logical support for your arguments? Seriously, put down the bottle and stop posting. You've done nothing but post gibberish and try to pass it off as some sort of arcane knowledge. If you want to pursue this nonsense, good luck to you, but stop trying to entice anyone else into joining you on this fool's errand.