Another LostHead on the road to ruin

[RyanMcC]

… A most in-formative statement in regard to the early history of the income-tax law was recently written by Mr. F. Morse Hub-bard

Did you go to Dan's FAQ and search for F. Morse Hubbard?

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Or did you fail to ever do so because you don't ever read anything that interferes with your carefully constructed delusions about the income tax?

[Weston White]

Yeah, they did actually earn income, what makes you different from them?

Revenue is not income. They used’ incomes’ for a very specific reason. Otherwise they would have simply used revenue or even wage or the exchange of monies, but they did not. Look up the history of the income tax, it is rather self-explanatory. And the people did not pay taxes on their revenue until the victory tax began. And you can cite no cases that support your contentions about the income taxes present day statute quo misconception.

If court rulings directly contradict your assertions, one must then only conclude that your arguments are merely your misinterpretations or ill-guided opinions.

That is just so not even fact or true. You are not even capable of providing all of the facts about all of these cases you and your kin quote. Therefore I can really only conclude you are full of yourselves and have not a clue. You want me to simply take your case quotes at your word. Sorry cubby there is much more to it than that! Reading is only half the battle. GI Joe!

Nah, instead why don't you tell me why the opinions of a court about what the law is doesn't apply to you.

Sure, all you have to first simply do is prove to me that those cases do apply specifically to me in my current situation. I would thereafter be glad to. But you can’t do it and you know it, hell, not even LPC can do it.

Also tell me how the source or type of income would matter in reference to the below citation:

“Plaintiff apparently bases his position on a strict interpretation of the statutory language of section 3401(c) which does not on its face include all persons who earn wages from an employer. ... The definition should not be read as exclusive, but rather as indicative of Congress' intent that those persons so designated in section 3401(c) would be subject to the income tax withholding provision in the same manner as all other employees. The definition of "employee", contrary to the interpretation urged by plaintiff, is more properly read to include all those persons with the ‘status of employee under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship.’”

Chamberlain v. Krysztof, 617 F.Supp. 491, KTC 1985-137 (N.D.N.Y. 1985) (footnotes omitted).

See in a lower court case it the evidence submitted by the parties the judge bases their decision upon. That and the judge can disallow whatever evidence they so choose to. Enough said.

Besides that why should I give a care what that case says? How does it even apply to me at all? All that is a quote, for all I know that is the opposite party talking there, what was the actual statement and evidence submitted? What evidence was permitted? Who did the person in question actually work for, what types of compensation were exchanged, etc., etc.? You are leaving out many required facts. You are wanting me describe a room to you that I have never been inside of before. Sorry I can’t do it.

Sitting in prison saying "lower court cases do not account for much" probally won't provide much comfort if it comes to that.

Sure and hopefully in such a case I will be “lucky” enough to be afforded a jury. Geez.

[Weston White]

… A most in-formative statement in regard to the early history of the income-tax law was recently written by Mr. F. Morse Hub-bard

Did you go to Dan's FAQ and search for F. Morse Hubbard?

Or did you fail to ever do so because you don't ever read anything that interferes with your carefully constructed delusions about the income tax?

Nope I filed an FOIA and got the Congressional record. I got my delusions about the income tax from reading historical documents and books that came out at the founding of our Nation. I think they knew better about such things than you, LPC, Quatloos, and all of the lower court case quotes you can muster all combined into one nice room filled piled of horseshit.

Now as for yourself, what part of excise tax, do you just not understand exactly?

[Lambkin]

Sure, all you have to first simply do is prove to me that those cases do apply specifically to me in my current situation. I would thereafter be glad to. But you can’t do it and you know it, hell, not even LPC can do it.

That's right, the specific application of the law to your sorry ass would have to be proved by you going to court, suing for a refund, or getting sued to recover a bogus refund, or being charged with a crime. You are hearing tax professionals making an educated guess about how your case would turn out IF you had the opportunity or obligation to lay your balls under the hammer and find out. If you don't like the advice you are getting, please, go ahead and sue for a refund or tell the IRS to "prosecute me" (you may have done that already) and find out for yourself. I look forward to the result; it should provide a few days of amusement. You can't "win" by debating on Quatloos. You can only win in court. Please report back and let us know how that turns out for you. "And remember, this is for posterity so be honest."

PS: what were you saying about not debating on Quatloos? You seem to be still here strutting and crowing like a bantam rooster while the man is sharpening a hatchet.

[RyanMcC]

Nope I filed an FOIA and got the Congressional record.

You could have just googled it.

I got my delusions about the income tax from reading historical documents and books that came out at the founding of our Nation.

So you got your delusions about the income tax from reading historical documents and books from over a century before the income tax was created? That explains alot.

I think they knew better about such things than you, LPC, Quatloos, and all of the lower court case quotes you can muster all combined into one nice room filled piled of horseshit.

Yeah? What was their opinion on the 16th amendment?

Now as for yourself, what part of excise tax, do you just not understand exactly?

The part where you seem to think it doesn't apply to you.

[Weston White]

Laff...

Correct me if I am wrong please but:

Cordell Hull had nothing to do with the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 nor the Victory Tax for that matter?

Where did Hubbard reference the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax Act? LPC did not bother to include that quote and its source. I doubt he actually stated that though, being that it seems silly to, for if it were true, the income tax would have not even been needed, Congress would have had created a two simultaneous tax acts for the same things.

What does Hubbard's having to reference the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax Act have to do with his quote about the measurement of the tax? Which BTW is not wrong, that is what it is! The income you earn is what is used to measure for the tax due!

How does being incorrect about one aspect make all other aspects incorrect? I thought it would only make you wrong about that one aspect, no? Unless you are passing a motion in court under that same numerated block of course. ROFL.

I like how he does not address anything else within that specific Congressional Record though, that says a TON! At least to me.

Also notice how LPC down plays who Hubbard it, oh he was just some attorney. Yea, sure he was LPC that is why he was mentioned in the Congressional Record. However, his information is included in my above post.

[Weston White]

Sure, all you have to first simply do is prove to me that those cases do apply specifically to me in my current situation. I would thereafter be glad to. But you can’t do it and you know it, hell, not even LPC can do it.

That's right, the specific application of the law to your sorry ass would have to be proved by you going to court, suing for a refund, or getting sued to recover a bogus refund, or being charged with a crime. You are hearing tax professionals making an educated guess about how your case would turn out IF you had the opportunity or obligation to lay your balls under the hammer and find out. If you don't like the advice you are getting, please, go ahead and sue for a refund or tell the IRS to "prosecute me" (you may have done that already) and find out for yourself. I look forward to the result; it should provide a few days of amusement. You can't "win" by debating on Quatloos. You can only win in court. Please report back and let us know how that turns out for you. "And remember, this is for posterity so be honest."

PS: what were you saying about not debating on Quatloos? You seem to be still here strutting and crowing like a bantam rooster while the man is sharpening a hatchet.

Haha, I said I would not debate the issue I posted in the other thread about Capitiation Taxes related to LPC' FAQ. I have already won that debate, no need to further argue it with you children like adults.

[Lambkin]

cockadoodledoo

That's right, no need to argue with me, I could not care less. Take it to court, the only place you can actually win or lose. I'm guessing you will lose, but who cares what I say? I am not a judge. Go for it buddy, everyone here will hold your beer.

[Weston White]

You could have just googled it.

No, I wanted the whole thing, not just one sheet. And I wanted an original copy to ensure it had not been tanted. I have filed many other FOIA for other records as well. Costs me a lot of money, but I am in this for the truth.

So you got your delusions about the income tax from reading historical documents and books from over a century before the income tax was created? That explains alot.

As all forms of taxation, the income tax was created long ago, the only thing that has changed is its application, its meaning, its definition has never changed.

Yeah? What was their opinion on the 16th amendment?

That is the only thing which has changed, its application, it still has the same meaning. And revenue taxation is a direct tax only. Gain and profit taxation is an indirect tax only. SCOTUS realizes this, why can't you? I think LPC has even quoted this fact himself a few times... to my amazement!

The part where you seem to think it doesn't apply to you.

No, no, it applies to me, I however am not fortunate to realize income, so in that respect it does not apply to me. Although there was a few years when I got out of the military that my saving account earned more than $10. Dollars annually… those days are long gone though. ROFL.

[Weston White]

cockadoodledoo

That's right, no need to argue with me, I could not care less. Take it to court, the only place you can actually win or lose. I'm guessing you will lose, but who cares what I say? I am not a judge. Go for it buddy, everyone here will hold your beer.

I did not post that. So not sure what you are up to.

[Weston White]

“As repeatedly pointed out by this court, the corporation tax law of 1909 ... imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense a tax upon property or upon income merely as income.”
U.S. v. Whitridge, 231 U.S. 144, 147 (1913).

BTW, this quote does not aid your positions. I guess LPC did not realize that when he included it in his FAQ.

[Gregg]

I have already won that debate, no need to further argue it with you children like adults.

And with that, I first need to know where to send the bill for the keyboard, and further I move we put this knucklehead on moderated status or do something else to please make it stop.

[wserra]

I move we put this knucklehead on moderated status or do something else to please make it stop.

"It" has not done anything to deserve moderated status. "It" will stop when folks here stop answering "it", and "it" realizes that "it" is talking to "itself".

[Cpt Banjo]

I got my delusions about the income tax

Truer words were never spoken.

[mutter]

I have already won that debate, no need to further argue it with you children like adults.

And with that, I first need to know where to send the bill for the keyboard, and further I move we put this knucklehead on moderated status or do something else to please make it stop.

so its ok for you to do it but not him? BTW i want to continue our discussion on the currency system, but I dont know where to create the thread. Oh and do the math .06 cents for a loath in 1913. a good loaf of potato bread cost about $3.89 today. thats a 5K increase.

and like I always say dont feed the animals and they wont get in the trash

[Gregg]

I have already won that debate, no need to further argue it with you children like adults.

And with that, I first need to know where to send the bill for the keyboard, and further I move we put this knucklehead on moderated status or do something else to please make it stop.

so its ok for you to do it but not him? BTW i want to continue our discussion on the currency system, but I dont know where to create the thread. Oh and do the math .06 cents for a loath in 1913. a good loaf of potato bread cost about $3.89 today. thats a 5K increase.

and like I always say dont feed the animals and they wont get in the trash

on the main page, there is a create new thread link
when pricing a basket, it's usually more relevant to compare it to the percent of an hour of income. Work an hour in order to earn enough to buy X etc...

[Red Cedar PM]

Also tell me how the source or type of income would matter in reference to the below citation:

“Plaintiff apparently bases his position on a strict interpretation of the statutory language of section 3401(c) which does not on its face include all persons who earn wages from an employer. ... The definition should not be read as exclusive, but rather as indicative of Congress' intent that those persons so designated in section 3401(c) would be subject to the income tax withholding provision in the same manner as all other employees. The definition of "employee", contrary to the interpretation urged by plaintiff, is more properly read to include all those persons with the ‘status of employee under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship.’”

Chamberlain v. Krysztof, 617 F.Supp. 491, KTC 1985-137 (N.D.N.Y. 1985) (footnotes omitted).

See in a lower court case it the evidence submitted by the parties the judge bases their decision upon. That and the judge can disallow whatever evidence they so choose to. Enough said.

Besides that why should I give a care what that case says? How does it even apply to me at all? All that is a quote, for all I know that is the opposite party talking there, what was the actual statement and evidence submitted? What evidence was permitted? Who did the person in question actually work for, what types of compensation were exchanged, etc., etc.? You are leaving out many required facts. You are wanting me describe a room to you that I have never been inside of before. Sorry I can’t do it.

It's the judge who wrote the opinion who he is quoting... Also, the judge isn't talking about evidence, he is interpreting the law and applying it to the case. You can find the evidence of the case under the "findings of fact" portion of the case citation. If certain evidence was not permitted that should have been, this person would have a great reason to appeal the ruling. That has nothing to do with how the judge interprets the law in the case, which is what is being quoted.

For such a self-proclaimed genius when it comes to interpreting the law you really don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground, do you?

[Famspear]

I'll expand and repeat my questions to Weston White:

1A. Weston, have you actually used the Cracking the Code method on a tax return?

1B. If so, for which year or years?

2. Do you think the IRS will at some point assert any section 6702 penalty against you?

3. If so, what will be your basic approach or theory in trying to fight the penalty (what specific argument or arguments will you make)?

[Weston White]

And now for an intermission...

A Former IRS Commissioner's Statement

T. Coleman Andrews served as commissioner of IRS for nearly 3 years during the early 1950s. Following his resignation, he made the following statement:

"Congress [in implementing the Sixteenth Amendment] went beyond merely enacting an income tax law and repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that article says we were to be secure. It opened up our homes, our papers and our effects to the prying eyes of government agents and set the stage for searches of our books and vaults and for inquiries into our private affairs whenever the tax men might decide, even though there might not be any justification beyond mere cynical suspicion."

"The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds."

"The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men."

"The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die."

Mmmm... The Communist Manifesto springs to my mind (plank 2). Just as as a question, are we not a Republic with inalienable rights to all?


Also consider this if Congress could tax your right to labor commonly as an indirect tax, could they also not tax your right to breath, or walk, or age, or see, or taste, or eat and drink, or relieve yourself, or cleanse yourself, or speak, or experience emotions, or practice religion, or enter into contracts, or pre-tax you in preparation for your passing (death), etc., etc. and at any percentage they so choose for each individual activity?

[Duke2Earl]

So what? Tony the Tiger said "Greeeeaaaaaat!" Why in heaven's name do you think whatever he said means absolutely anything?

And yes, Congress has the power to tax just about anything they want. And we have the power to elect a new Congress.