Is the "funny box"... falling apart?

[Weston White]

1. A CTC return meets both parts of 6702. A CTC return shows zero income from wages but withholding from wages. This would meet the criteria under 6702(1)(B). The conduct meets both parts of 6702(2) in that the conduct is based on a position the Secretary has identified as frivolous and would also reflect a desire to impede the administration of tax laws.

No a CtC shows income if there is actually income realized, though for most they do not have income, all they have is the revenue they earned in exchange for their labor. Every person has the right to contest something reported by somebody else in accordance with their own understanding of the law, if the IRS has an issue with that they need to address it through the correct legal channels, pumping out automated letters and notices, is not the correct way to go about that. There is no justice or rule of law to be found anywhere in such a policy.

And no again, you can’t apply the same presumed violation to meet the qualifications of each of the two required portions, let alone both of them or all of them. That is not following the spirit of the statute. Clearly it is a conditional statute so it was not designed to be all encompassing.

And no again, attempting to correct something that somebody else reported is not ‘frivolous’ it could never be frivolous, that is why this is never directly mentioned within the frivolous list, (even though it is such a big problem for the IRS). CtC to this date is still sitting on the IRS Dirty Dozen list, it appears that has been the case for about 4-years now, (gee what are they waiting for an engraved invitation?). There are no positions that make any mention of the capitation tax not being a tax in consideration of labor. All there are half-truths and manipulated statements pertaining to CtC and some other related incorrect beliefs and understandings, matters which Hendrickson does not support, nor myself for that matter.

And no again, attempting to correct something somebody else reported is not impeding the administration of tax laws, in fact it is in accordance with said tax laws; what you are stating is not at all the proper application of 26 USC 7212. This was pointed out recently in another post or thread.

There is a reason the IRS will not tell us what it is that we specifically doing wrong, because they can’t, if there were to they would be without any supporting law… and yet you believe you can so easily do it yourself? Let me guess you put on a clown costume as requisite part of your occupation?

Sorry, your logic is fatally flawed and incredibly desperate.

2. 6702 does not seem to be listed within the Federal Register,[the current version of 6702 was passed under public law 109-432

Public law for what the District of Columbia? What do I care, I live 3,000 miles away, is it listed within the Federal Register like it is required to be? I searched and could not find a thing. If so do you have a link to it? TIA.

Code: Select all

TITLE 44 > CHAPTER 15
CHAPTER 15—FEDERAL REGISTER AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
…
§ 1503. Filing documents with Office; notation of time; public inspection; transmission for printing
…
§ 1505. Documents to be published in Federal Register
…
§ 1507. Filing document as constructive notice; publication in Federal Register as presumption of validity; judicial notice; citation

3. There is no Regulation for 6702,[ Nor is there a requirement in the law that there be a regulation]

Yes there is, except for statutes which have either a self-executing clause or the statute itself does not require regulatory language to be additionally written in-order to effectively enforce the statute itself... Guess what 6702(c) does.

4. The definition of the 'persons',

Si, qui tacet consentire videtur!

5. 6702 is NULL within the PTOA,[huh?] and

Exactly, huh? What? Huh? There is that classic all that matters is IRS Pub.15 mentality that we all love and endure oh so much! Good job there buddy, good job!

6. Your contention which has been determined to be a frivolous position for a longer time than PH has been spouting it.

Then why did you fail to list that position from the 6702(c) list? Oh that is right, because there is no one… there is only your wimpy and irrelevant, how does it go, oh yea, “Claiming that ’wages’ are not ‘income’.” Nobody around here or around LH ever claims that, for if they did or should they, they would be outright, wrong. Because we all know that is exactly what they are.

7. Or as the Supremes stated is in the nature of excises

Bingo.

[Joey Smith]

No the toll levied for using a bridge is for each passing not for each day, as the toll levied for the income tax is annually. Not the same thing.

The frivolous fine is on the return, not the tax or the year. If you send in 20 returns for the same year, then you have 20 fines.

Oh yea, I am entirely sure it costs the IRS $5,000 for every return they have to gloss over...

The point is that there is a cost for frivolous returns; it is not a "no harm, no foul" situation. To deter frivolous filings, Congress has set the penalty where it is. One can avoid completely the payment of the fine by simply complying with the law.

[jg]

1. A CTC return meets both parts of 6702. A CTC return shows zero income from wages but withholding from wages. This would meet the criteria under 6702(1)(B). The conduct meets both parts of 6702(2) in that the conduct is based on a position the Secretary has identified as frivolous and would also reflect a desire to impede the administration of tax laws.

No a CtC shows income if there is actually income realized, though for most they do not have income, all they have is the revenue they earned in exchange for their labor. ...

As clearly demonstrated to you (in at least two other threads so far) that revenue which realized an increase in your wealth is gross income subject to tax, despite what you or Hendrickson might imagine.
See, for example, http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4021

Every person has the right to contest something reported by somebody else in accordance with their own understanding of the law, if the IRS has an issue with that they need to address it through the correct legal channels, pumping out automated letters and notices, is not the correct way to go about that. There is no justice or rule of law to be found anywhere in such a policy.
...
There is a reason the IRS will not tell us what it is that we specifically doing wrong, because they can’t, if there were to they would be without any supporting law… and yet you believe you can so easily do it yourself? Let me guess you put on a clown costume as requisite part of your occupation? ...

Quite the contrary. You can make a claim for refund and try to show why you are correct; but the IRS can not accept your frivolous.
Your understanding is merely your opinion and has no legal authority.
There are procedures for you to seek redetermination or sue for a refund. There is a process.

Neither you nor I determine what is the legal interpretation. The Constitution has granted judicial power to the courts. Tax deniers prefer to ignore this provision and pretend to have the only and last word on the correct interpretation; but that is simply not in touch with reality.
You are the one that has no supporting law. Otherwise please provide some (either here or in the other threads)

[LPC]

Out of curiosity, have you ever have any original ideas concerning the income tax?

What does that matter and why do you care?

You're right, it doesn't; and no, we don't.

[LPC]

Think of it this way: There is a fine for using the turnpike without paying the toll. Every time somebody drives on the turnpike without paying the fine, it is a separate fine. If they drive without paying the toll for five days, they have five different fines, not one, which is exactly the intention of Congress in enacting the penalty to make each bogus return a separate violation.

No the toll levied for using a bridge is for each passing not for each day, as the toll levied for the income tax is annually. Not the same thing.

Are you mentally defective? Drunk? Illiterate?

It's getting increasingly difficult to imagine how a sober, rational, literate human being could respond in the ways you're responding.

[LPC]

It's getting increasingly difficult to imagine how a sober, rational, literate human being could respond in the ways you're responding.

Is there such a thing as an anti-Turing machine?

[LPC]

Is there such a thing as an anti-Turing machine?

Yes, an AMC Gremlin. No one would ever think of turing in it....... but I digress......

I had a thought, a flash of insight. I typed it in. Yes! A wonderful jest. Intellectual. Subtle. I think about it. I hesitate. But yes, it works! A strange blend of geek rationality, nihilism, and Dadaism. I click on "Submit," sending my creation into the thread.

I wait to see how many keyboards I might destroy.

And then a response. You, you pollute, you DESECRATE my bon mot with a g-damn grease-monkey car joke!

[Insert Captain Kirk impersonation here!]

[Paul]

Paul wrote:
7. The "income tax" is not a "capitation tax", it is an "excise tax".

I thought you said that Adam Smith said that it's a capitation tax.

What? Not I said that only a tax upon labor can be a capitation tax, as that what its definition is. Neither class of tax can be the other.

The quote you like to use from Smith is,"Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconveniences of such taxes."

But earlier in that chapter, he said, "The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes, and taxes upon consumable commodities. These must be paid indifferently from whatever revenue the contributors may possess; from the rent of their land, from the profits of their stock, or from the wages of their labour."

So when he says "wages from labour," he's talking about "revenue" which he puts in the same category as rent from land and profits from stock, and he says that capitations fall on all revenues. So why do you think that his "capitation" statement means that only a tax on wages, and not on the other sources of revenues, is a capitation? Other than the fact that you don't actually read, you just parrot what the tp gurus say.

[Nikki]

It's getting increasingly difficult to imagine how a sober, rational, literate human being could respond in the ways you're responding.

Is there such a thing as an anti-Turing machine?

Of course there is.

Most recently here, you have the patented SFBFKADMVP word salad generator -- incapable of producing any rational output no matter what the input.

Another variety is is the sovereignoramus as exemplified at Son Of Sooey which is only capable of responding CONTRACT, UCC, STRAWMAN to any question.

The last sort which springs to mind is the ":" breed who are genetically handicapped by their total inability to process any concept which does not agree with their Aristotolean world view and can only respond -- to anything -- with a daigonally-scrawled red crayon.

I'm sure there are more, but it's late and they probably deserve a separate thread for full analysis, exploration, and abuse.

[Paul]

Oh yea, I am entirely sure it costs the IRS $5,000 for every return they have to gloss over... sure, right!! wink wink...

It's a PENALTY, moron, not a user fee. It's purpose is not just to compensate the government for the costs of dealing with the idiotic returns, but to give the idiots who file them an incentive not to discontinue the practice.

[Weston White]

Oh yea, I am entirely sure it costs the IRS $5,000 for every return they have to gloss over... sure, right!! wink wink...

It's a PENALTY, moron, not a user fee. It's purpose is not just to compensate the government for the costs of dealing with the idiotic returns, but to give the idiots who file them an incentive not to discontinue the practice.

Oh fine let me show you...

Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

You mail in a few pieces of paper full of zeros on it (and in the process ensuring that postal workers have a job to do, keeping them employed and all), big fricking boo-hoo deal, it takes all of about 45-seconds to 5-minutes to gloss through it. Decision made and action taken, which adds about another 2-5 minutes to the process, end of story. How in the hell is a $5K fine justified? Simple it isn't it is a stupid weak ass scare tactic and upon the IRS' own admission it is failing the IRS miserably!

[Weston White]

Are you mentally defective? Drunk? Illiterate?

It's getting increasingly difficult to imagine how a sober, rational, literate human being could respond in the ways you're responding.

And I am sure a drunkard would entirely agree with you.

[Weston White]

The quote you like to use from Smith is,"Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconveniences of such taxes."

But earlier in that chapter, he said, "The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes, and taxes upon consumable commodities. These must be paid indifferently from whatever revenue the contributors may possess; from the rent of their land, from the profits of their stock, or from the wages of their labour."

So when he says "wages from labour," he's talking about "revenue" which he puts in the same category as rent from land and profits from stock, and he says that capitations fall on all revenues. So why do you think that his "capitation" statement means that only a tax on wages, and not on the other sources of revenues, is a capitation? Other than the fact that you don't actually read, you just parrot what the tp gurus say.

He was speaking in generalities, did you miss the part where he stated: “are capitation taxes, and taxes upon consumable commodities”? He was referencing them both capitations and excises as a whole. It was our Forefathers who later in framing the U.S. Constitution that applied the suggestion of “indifference”, by making direct categories of taxes apportioned to the census and indirect categories of taxes uniform throughout the states; if you read the new several paragraphs down you and compare that to July 11th in the Convention, you can see the corresponding influence in principle.

“The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes, and taxes upon consumable commodities.

Above he is stating that ones revenue of whatever type or class should have no bearing or concern as to the amount of tax to be levied, that they all should follow some system of proportionment, so far as capitation taxes [direct taxes] and consumables [indirect taxes] are concerned. This was achieved through apportionment and uniformity with the U.S. Constitution.

These must be paid indifferently from whatever revenue the contributors may possess; from the rent of their land, from the profits of their stock, or from the wages of their labour.

Above he is only saying that in paying such taxes, where those payments come from should have no bearing or concern in the act of actually paying the tax and should be proportional to all. [Also just to note, I think 'stock' actually means a supply or accumulation of something, not investment stock?]

The legal definition of capitation taxes supports what I have stated it means and what Dr. Adam Smith had written it to mean.


I find this noteworthy as well:

WHEN the stock which a man possesses is no more than sufficient to maintain him for a few days or a few weeks, he seldom thinks of deriving any revenue from it. He consumes it as sparingly as he can, and endeavours by his labour to acquire something which may supply its place before it be consumed altogether. His revenue is, in this case, derived from his labour only. This is the state of the greater part of the labouring poor in all countries.

But when he possesses stock sufficient to maintain him for months or years, he naturally endeavours to derive a revenue from the greater part of it; reserving only so much for his immediate consumption as may maintain him till this revenue begins to come in. His whole stock, therefore, is distinguished into two parts. That part which, he expects, is to afford him this revenue, is called his capital. The other is that which supplies his immediate consumption; and which consists either, first, in that portion of his whole stock which was originally reserved for this purpose; or, secondly, in his revenue, from whatever source derived, as it gradually comes in; or, thirdly, in such things as had been purchased by either of these in former years, and which are not yet entirely consumed; such as a stock of clothes, household furniture, and the like. In one, or other, or all of these three articles, consists the stock which men commonly reserve for their own immediate consumption.
...

[Famspear]

The quote you like to use from Smith is,"Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconveniences of such taxes."

But earlier in that chapter, he said, "The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes, and taxes upon consumable commodities. These must be paid indifferently from whatever revenue the contributors may possess; from the rent of their land, from the profits of their stock, or from the wages of their labour."

So when he says "wages from labour," he's talking about "revenue" which he puts in the same category as rent from land and profits from stock, and he says that capitations fall on all revenues. So why do you think that his "capitation" statement means that only a tax on wages, and not on the other sources of revenues, is a capitation? Other than the fact that you don't actually read, you just parrot what the tp gurus say.

He was speaking in generalities, did you miss the part where he stated: “are capitation taxes, and taxes upon consumable commodities”? He was referencing them both capitations and excises as a whole. It was our Forefathers who later in framing the U.S. Constitution that applied the suggestion of “indifference”, by making direct categories of taxes apportioned to the census and indirect categories of taxes uniform throughout the states; if you read the new several paragraphs down you and compare that to July 11th in the Convention, you can see the corresponding influence in principle.

“The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes, and taxes upon consumable commodities.

Above he is stating that ones revenue of whatever type or class should have no bearing or concern as to the amount of tax to be levied, that they all should follow some system of proportionment, so far as capitation taxes [direct taxes] and consumables [indirect taxes] are concerned. This was achieved through apportionment and uniformity with the U.S. Constitution.

These must be paid indifferently from whatever revenue the contributors may possess; from the rent of their land, from the profits of their stock, or from the wages of their labour.

Above he is only saying that in paying such taxes, where those payments come from should have no bearing or concern in the act of actually paying the tax and should be proportional to all. [Also just to note, I think 'stock' actually means a supply or accumulation of something, not investment stock?]

The legal definition of capitation taxes supports what I have stated it means and what Dr. Adam Smith had written it to mean.


I find this noteworthy as well:

WHEN the stock which a man possesses is no more than sufficient to maintain him for a few days or a few weeks, he seldom thinks of deriving any revenue from it. He consumes it as sparingly as he can, and endeavours by his labour to acquire something which may supply its place before it be consumed altogether. His revenue is, in this case, derived from his labour only. This is the state of the greater part of the labouring poor in all countries.

But when he possesses stock sufficient to maintain him for months or years, he naturally endeavours to derive a revenue from the greater part of it; reserving only so much for his immediate consumption as may maintain him till this revenue begins to come in. His whole stock, therefore, is distinguished into two parts. That part which, he expects, is to afford him this revenue, is called his capital. The other is that which supplies his immediate consumption; and which consists either, first, in that portion of his whole stock which was originally reserved for this purpose; or, secondly, in his revenue, from whatever source derived, as it gradually comes in; or, thirdly, in such things as had been purchased by either of these in former years, and which are not yet entirely consumed; such as a stock of clothes, household furniture, and the like. In one, or other, or all of these three articles, consists the stock which men commonly reserve for their own immediate consumption.
...

Nope. Not noteworthy.

And Adam Smith was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Pollock case. We've already been through this.

[Paul]

Above he is only saying that in paying such taxes, where those payments come from should have no bearing or concern in the act of actually paying the tax and should be proportional to all. [Also just to note, I think 'stock' actually means a supply or accumulation of something, not investment stock?]

You finally got something right -- he isn't talking about shares of stock in a corporation. But nothing in what you said explains why saying a capitation falls on all sources of revenue that a person has, and so falls on wages when that's all the person has, means a tax on wages is a capitation, while a tax on other income (rents and interest, in particular) is not a capitaton. Didn't expect you to answer it because I didn't expect you to understand it, and you've proven me right on both points.

[Weston White]

Nope. Not noteworthy.

And Adam Smith was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Pollock case. We've already been through this.

SuperYawnSkies.

[Weston White]

You finally got something right -- he isn't talking about shares of stock in a corporation. But nothing in what you said explains why saying a capitation falls on all sources of revenue that a person has, and so falls on wages when that's all the person has, means a tax on wages is a capitation, while a tax on other income (rents and interest, in particular) is not a capitaton. Didn't expect you to answer it because I didn't expect you to understand it, and you've proven me right on both points.

What you want me to define all the various classes of taxes for you, are you serious? They are what they are! Imposts, duties, tariffs, excises, poll-taxes, capitation taxes, personal taxes, customs, succession taxes, et al. Boy I sure bet nobody has ever dared to call you a SUPERSTAR!

Tell you what, go read upon 'capitations' from France, happy reading adventures.

[Paul]

What you want me to define all the various classes of taxes for you, are you serious? They are what they are! Imposts, duties, tariffs, excises, poll-taxes, capitation taxes, personal taxes, customs, succession taxes, et al. Boy I sure bet nobody has ever dared to call you a SUPERSTAR!

"et al"?????? You mean you can't list them?

And which ones are subject to the rule of apportionment and which to the rule of uniformity?