Hendrickson worshipper Patrick Mooney has it all figured out

[Imalawman]

Hey now, Weston has served a purpose - he got me to learn how to use the "Ignore" feature for the forums. Woo and hoo.

Yup, for sure, and its wonderful...I love how he's still whining about never showing him any statutes - just our own opinion. I think if I were in the field of mental health, I would find this to be an interesting case study. It seems as though he really believes that we've never shown him any law at all. I participate for a while with the new blood here, but after they stick their fingers in their ears and start lying to themselves and us, its an exercise in futility.

[Weston White]

Hey now, Weston has served a purpose - he got me to learn how to use the "Ignore" feature for the forums. Woo and hoo.

Yup, for sure, and its wonderful...I love how he's still whining about never showing him any statutes - just our own opinion. I think if I were in the field of mental health, I would find this to be an interesting case study. It seems as though he really believes that we've never shown him any law at all. I participate for a while with the new blood here, but after they stick their fingers in their ears and start lying to themselves and us, its an exercise in futility.

Oh yea I can see how that ignore feature is just working wonders for even you... ummmm... yea.

[Nikki]

Oh yea, that is why there is nothing proving you contentions, meanwhile, I have found source after source after source stating that taxing labor is a direct tax, specifically a direct tax, from the founding documents of our Nations to the POLLOCK case, the annotations for the XVI Amendment further supports my claims, while debunking yours. The works of the economists, professionals, and politicians around during the founding of our Nation, Cooley, Gallatin, Wharton, and Smith, their works do not support your beliefs at all. But believe what you want I really do not care that much, if you want to be a lost cause, be a lost cause, if that is what makes you happy and content. This is America after all.

Sixteenth Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Please explain where there is any restriction within the amendment as to direct or indirect taxes. In doing so, remember the basic concept of "amendment."

Finally, please show a single court decision, at any federal level, since the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which supports the requirement for the income tax to be either direct or indirect for it to be valid and constitutional.

Have fun.

[Paul]

Besides, there is always a tomorrow, there is always tomorrow.

"There wasn't one yesterday." Bill Murray, Groundhog Day.

[Red Cedar PM]

Red Cedar PM wrote:What YOU don't understand, Weston, is that people here won't buy into your BS unless it is supported by actual court cases, or citations to law or regulations (which it isn't, which is why what you are saying is BS in the first place). You just saying that we don't understand what you are talking about does not make you correct.

ROLF and that is complete and utter non-sense, because it would mean you can never establish a law or a fundamental until you first have a court case declaring or founding it... whatever "it" may or may not be.

You are completely and utterly unable to read, as I never said or implied any such thing. Go back and re-read how I mentioned laws and regulations as possible backup for taking a position. Then you might want to consider cutting back on the glue-sniffing.

[Weston White]

Red Cedar PM wrote:What YOU don't understand, Weston, is that people here won't buy into your BS unless it is supported by actual court cases, or citations to law or regulations (which it isn't, which is why what you are saying is BS in the first place). You just saying that we don't understand what you are talking about does not make you correct.

ROLF and that is complete and utter non-sense, because it would mean you can never establish a law or a fundamental until you first have a court case declaring or founding it... whatever "it" may or may not be.

You are completely and utterly unable to read, as I never said or implied any such thing. Go back and re-read how I mentioned laws and regulations as possible backup for taking a position. Then you might want to consider cutting back on the glue-sniffing.

No not at all, that is what you are saying, that is exactly what you are saying. You just can't see the forest through the trees. For you fail to see that neither does any such court cases, citations to law or regulations state that working is itself taxable or that the money earned from working is itself taxable.

That being said Black's Law Dictionary is a legal citation, Congressional Reports are legal citations, the Constitution, the Convention, the Federalist Papers, historical writings are all legally relevant.

[Weston White]

Oh yea, that is why there is nothing proving you contentions, meanwhile, I have found source after source after source stating that taxing labor is a direct tax, specifically a direct tax, from the founding documents of our Nations to the POLLOCK case, the annotations for the XVI Amendment further supports my claims, while debunking yours. The works of the economists, professionals, and politicians around during the founding of our Nation, Cooley, Gallatin, Wharton, and Smith, their works do not support your beliefs at all. But believe what you want I really do not care that much, if you want to be a lost cause, be a lost cause, if that is what makes you happy and content. This is America after all.

Sixteenth Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Please explain where there is any restriction within the amendment as to direct or indirect taxes. In doing so, remember the basic concept of "amendment."

Finally, please show a single court decision, at any federal level, since the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which supports the requirement for the income tax to be either direct or indirect for it to be valid and constitutional.

Have fun.

Sure... and there you have it:

There remains one other point which deserves a word of comment. This refers to the question of uniformity. It might be claimed, and in fact it has been claimed, that under the proposed amendment there will be no assurance of uniformity, for the constitutional provision as to uniformity specifically applies only to "all duties, imposts and excises." Since the amendment, while changing the method of levying the income tax, in so far as it has been held to be a direct tax, leaves unaltered its nature or appellation as a direct tax, it might be contended that the income tax as a direct tax is not necessarily subject to the constitutional inhibition as to uniformity.

This contention, however, is clearly erroneous. The constitution gives a double classification of taxes — one according to their nature, the other according to the mode of levy. According to their nature, taxes are divided into the four classes of direct taxes, duties, imposts and excises. According to the mode of levy, however, taxes are divided into two classes only — those subject to the rule of apportionment and those subject to the rule of uniformity. If, now, the income tax is by constitutional amendment taken out of the first category, it necessarily falls into the second. There is no third category into which it could fall. To assume that an income tax could be levied without uniformity would be to make of the tax neither fish nor flesh — to keep it, as it were, suspended in mid-air between the two solid posts of apportionment and uniformity. These are the only methods con- templated by the constitution. Every tax, no matter what its , application, must be levied in one of these two ways. If the one way is barred by the constitutional amendment, it must necessarily be levied in the other way. To assume that under the amendment we could have anything but a uniform income tax would be to do violence to every rule of constitutional construction.

Chief Justice Fuller, in the first Pollock case, makes this clear. He says : "Although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax when included under the words 'duties, impositions and excises,' such a tax for more than a hundred years of national existence has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances has invited thorough investigation into sources of revenue." * Is it reasonable to suppose that the court would fly in the face of the experience of a century in order to create such an abortion ? Moreover, any such interpretation of the amendment would lead to a manifest absurdity. For under the existing decisions an income tax levied on business or on professional incomes is still to be classed as an excise or duty, and there-fore subject to the uniformity clause. How, then, could we have a general income tax a part of which should be uniform and a part of which should not be uniform ? Such a tax would indeed be theoretically possible, but is it conceivable that any legislature composed of sane human beings would attempt to enact such a measure? Moreover, apart from any such considerations, it is scarcely open to doubt that the other clauses, such as the fifth amendment, as well as the implied restrictions of the constitution, would avail to prevent any serious derogation from the principles of equality in taxation.
…
' "Capital is a deposit for the purpose of carrying on any business or speculation; income is the emolument which arises from it." — Observations an the Income Act; particularly as it relates to the Occupiers of Land : with some Proposals of Amendment. To which is added a Short Scheme for Meliorating the Condition of the Labouring Man. By Francis Newbery. London, 1801, p. 13.

The Income Tax: A Study of the History, Theory and Practice of Income

[Gregg]

Weston White is a troll. His specious theories and arguments about Federal Income Tax Law have been thoroughly addressed. Following Weston White's advice on tax matters will likely result in a very unpleasant result (see Hendrickson, Peter http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1821).

Please don't feed the troll.

[ASITStands]

Please explain where there is any restriction within the amendment as to direct or indirect taxes. In doing so, remember the basic concept of "amendment."

Finally, please show a single court decision, at any federal level, since the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which supports the requirement for the income tax to be either direct or indirect for it to be valid and constitutional.

Sure... and there you have it:

And, then Weston cites:

Chief Justice Fuller, in the first Pollock case, makes this clear. He says : "Although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax when included under the words 'duties, impositions and excises,' such a tax for more than a hundred years of national existence has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances has invited thorough investigation into sources of revenue." * Is it reasonable to suppose that the court would fly in the face of the experience of a century in order to create such an abortion ? Moreover, any such interpretation of the amendment would lead to a manifest absurdity. For under the existing decisions an income tax levied on business or on professional incomes is still to be classed as an excise or duty, and there-fore subject to the uniformity clause. How, then, could we have a general income tax a part of which should be uniform and a part of which should not be uniform ? Such a tax would indeed be theoretically possible, but is it conceivable that any legislature composed of sane human beings would attempt to enact such a measure? Moreover, apart from any such considerations, it is scarcely open to doubt that the other clauses, such as the fifth amendment, as well as the implied restrictions of the constitution, would avail to prevent any serious derogation from the principles of equality in taxation.
…
' "Capital is a deposit for the purpose of carrying on any business or speculation; income is the emolument which arises from it." — Observations an the Income Act; particularly as it relates to the Occupiers of Land : with some Proposals of Amendment. To which is added a Short Scheme for Meliorating the Condition of the Labouring Man. By Francis Newbery. London, 1801, p. 13.

The Income Tax: A Study of the History, Theory and Practice of Income

Reading comprehension is definitely NOT Weston's strong point.

[ASITStands]

Weston White is a troll. His specious theories and arguments about Federal Income Tax Law have been thoroughly addressed. Following Weston White's advice on tax matters will likely result in a very unpleasant result (see Hendrickson, Peter http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1821).

Please don't feed the troll.

I agree with 'Gregg' and will attempt to ignore Weston after this post.

He's shown that he doesn't want any help understanding law. He doesn't even have an original thought in regard to taxes. It would be entertaining if he did for that reason alone.

[Weston White]

Actually, you would more correctly be labeled a troll than myself. Below I have included the definition of a troll to clue you in. Now being that it is you, yourself that is bringing up entirely unrelated issues, such as Hendrickson for example that makes you a troll. See you do this because you have to avoid the real core issues and topics, because simply put you can’t handle them, you realize that the issues being brought forth are entirely destructive to the foundation in which Quatloos.com has been built up on, the facade, the lie, the farce. You realize that your very foundation is crumbling away and your footing is getting becoming desperate.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response [1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Say hello to Gregg…




Hello visitor, since you are already here visiting, let’s meet the rest of the Quatloos crew:




Individually they are:


Famspear


Nikki


Demo


LPC


ASITStands


Judge Roy Bean


Prof


Paul


The Observer


Joey Smith


Dr. Caligari


jg


.


Imalawman


UGA Lawdog


Cpt Banjo


Dezcad


Lambkin


Quixote


CaptainKickback


Duke2Earl


webhick


And of Course Jay David Adkisson, the man, the myth, the legend himself... we owe it all to him and his innovations!

[iplawyer]

WebHick - that is exactly how I imagined a writing wizzard to look - perfect. You are too cute! Demo's cute too - but where is the melon?

[Famspear]

The picture of me is so lifelike, it's scary.

I part my hair a little differently, that's all.

[Nikki]

Re me:

SO wrong.

Despite innumerable posts correcting the "i" misperception, WW still got it wrong.

[ASITStands]

Re me:

SO wrong.

Despite innumerable posts correcting the "i" misperception, WW still got it wrong.

I suspect he's tweaking your nose.

Let him have his little joke. It may be the only satisfaction he'll have in the near future.

"I showed those Quatloosians! I deconstructed their little tax conspiracy."

[Famspear]

Getting back to the subject of this thread -- Patrick Michael Mooney's latest Tax Court case (case no. 8128-09) -- we recall that Mooney has it all figured out this time. From his April 2, 2009 petition, his reasons for disagreement with the IRS notice of deficiency include:

A) Petitioner did not engage in any taxable activity above the personal exemption amount for the year in question [tax year 2005].

B) Petitioner filed a timely and lawful Claim for Refund, which the Respondent has not yet dutifully processed.
[ . . . . ]

From Mooney's Statement of Facts:

A) Petitioner is not a taxpayer [italics in original], as the law defines that term.
[ . . . .]

C) Petitioner has legally rebutted any allegations that he received income or participated in any taxable activity in a timely and correct fashion [ . . . ]

D) The Respondent does not have anything other than hearsay allegations to prop up his frivolous claims and has been using that hearsay as a pretext to engage in color of law tactics designed to coerce the Petitioner into surrendering his claim to his lawful property.

And, in a demonstration of Mooney's cluelessness regarding the issuance of a Notice of Deficiency prior to the assessment of the tax, Mooney correctly notes:

E) Petitioner has not received, nor witnessed, a valid lawful certificate of assessment showing any liability for the year in question. There is no such assessment on the record.

He goes on:

F) The economic activities of the Petitioner for the period in question are outside of the bounds of the Respondent's jurisdiction.

The IRS (Respondent) is asserting a year 2005 Form 1040 tax deficiency of $3,614.00, plus a section 6654 penalty of $144.97, plus a section 6651(f) penalty of $2,620.15, plus a section 6651(a)(2) penalty of $524.03, for a total of $6,903.15. Obviously there would also be statutory interest.

Mooney claims that he is due a refund of $2,647.48 "plus any penalties and interest that the law allows."

[grixit]

Huh, doesn't he know what the penalties should be? He's studied the law, after all.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, one of the truly clueless, and I fear, of those doomed to be forever disappointed when all their carefully nurtured delusions do not come to pass. I foresee a very long wait for that refund.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I didn't get a cool troll avatar, either?

Man....now I'm really crushed.