The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

SquatloosianTroll
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:28 pm

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby SquatloosianTroll » Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:53 am

SquatloosianTroll wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:
Squatloosian Troll wrote:Okay off I go .............


...to try to find another tax denier website I can cut and paste from.


You assume too much. I use the LII (Legal Information Institute) site. You know Cornell Law School? Not a tax denier website according to my current information. Maybe you know something I don't?
I corrected my username for you. I am squatting here on Quatloos as a troll.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

SquatloosianTroll
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:28 pm

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby SquatloosianTroll » Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:56 am

SquatloosianTroll wrote:
SquatloosianTroll wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:
...to try to find another tax denier website I can cut and paste from.


You assume too much. I use the LII (Legal Information Institute) site. You know Cornell Law School? Not a tax denier website according to my current information. Maybe you know something I don't?
I corrected my username for you. I am squatting here on Quatloos as a troll.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text


... oh and the Federal Register.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby Famspear » Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:05 am

Dear Troll: You are making some sort of erroneous "thought connection" in your mind between the assessment statutes in the Internal Revenue Code (which you cited and linked properly) and the fact that those same statutes are cited (not quoted, but cited) in a regulation that deals with alcohol, etc. (namely in title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations).

It may be that in your mind, you're thinking --incorrectly -- that because the section numbers for the assessment statutes are listed in the Federal Register materials (the Treasury regs) codified in the CFR for "alcohol", etc., that the assessment statutes somehow apply only to taxes on sales of alcohol, etc.

That thinking would be incorrect. You would be "reading in" something that's not there.

As a matter of law, the mere fact that a section of the Internal Revenue Code (the IRC) is cited in a regulation (in title 27 of the CFR or anywhere else, for that matter) does not magically make that IRC section somehow apply only to the subject of the regulation.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby Dr. Caligari » Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:10 am

So what you are leading me to is that the return is filed and paid without assessment. So if you sell alcohol, file and pay your tax, it is then assessed.


Where does section 6151 mention alcohol?

Then I am not sure what Sec. 61 is relating to 6151. (???)


Section 61 defines "gross income." Section 6121 says that if you have sufficient gross income (it's currently about $10,500-- citations on request) you must file a return. Section 6151 says that if you file a return, you must pay the tax, with or without assessment. None of these sections mentions alcohol. You argued (incorrectly, as Famspear pointed out upthread, but let that be for now), that the only authority for assessment is selling alcohol. But, as we've now seen, payment doesn't require assessment. So how do you get the idea that there is no obligation to pay taxes unless you're selling alcohol?
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby Famspear » Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:14 am

PS: You are not getting all your information from the United States Code as published at the Cornell Law School web site and you are not getting all your information from the regs in the Federal Register.

First of all, many of the statements you have made are not even found in those materials. Your interpretations -- particularly your reference to the sale of alcohol, indicate that you have indeed been reading tax protester literature.

Second, your discussion of the Treasury regulation under IRC section 861 indicates that you have been reading tax protester literature, and not merely the regulations and statutes themselves.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3501
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby grixit » Sat Sep 02, 2017 9:44 am

Clark's Law of Tax Denier Positions: Any sufficiently consistent body of case law is indistinguishable from a universal judicial conspiracy.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby Famspear » Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:22 pm

Troll wrote:

....Yeah I'm not as organized with what I want/need to say, but I finally nailed it down as to how it should have been said.
Not perfect am I but I understand how the code is written and works.


I respect you for those comments. I may hurt your feelings, but no, you do not understand how "the code" is written and how the code works.

I have been reading/studying the code off and on since 1993....


That's not good enough. Indeed, your posts here in this thread illustrate that you do not really understand what you are "reading" and "studying". I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but you need to hear the truth.

Wserra made a reference to you earlier as being a poster at a "stevens" web site. If by chance you are a believer of Marc Stevens, then you are following the pronouncements of someone who knows almost nothing about the law.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby wserra » Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:50 pm

Famspear wrote:If by chance you are a believer of Marc Stevens, then you are following the pronouncements of someone who knows almost nothing about the law.


"Almost" nothing? Stevens must have learned something recently.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby Famspear » Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:59 pm

wserra wrote:
Famspear wrote:If by chance you are a believer of Marc Stevens, then you are following the pronouncements of someone who knows almost nothing about the law.


"Almost" nothing? Stevens must have learned something recently.


:)

I'm not sayin' I have actually seen any evidence he knows anything about law......
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3529
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:28 pm

Famspear wrote:
wserra wrote:
Famspear wrote:If by chance you are a believer of Marc Stevens, then you are following the pronouncements of someone who knows almost nothing about the law.


"Almost" nothing? Stevens must have learned something recently.


:)

I'm not sayin' I have actually seen any evidence he knows anything about law......


I'm reminded of a dear, deceased friend's valedictory speech to his graduating med school class, wherein he told them (they were all men at that date): "Gentlemen, half of what you have learned here is probably wrong; the problem is, we don't know which half."

Stevens has learned a lot about the law; the problem is the lot he's learned is wrong. Unfortunately for his sycophants and acolytes, they are the ones who pay the consequences.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby Famspear » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:06 pm

Earlier, I summarized the troll’s “belief” about how the law works, as follows:

Taxes on Federal tax returns are assessed only based on part 70 of title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and since part 70 deals only with selling alcohol, etc., then the Federal income tax cannot apply to (fill in the blank, compensation for services, interest income, whatever, etc., etc.).


I asked him if this was an accurate reading of what he believed. The Troll responded with this statement:

As far as what the code is telling me regarding assessments, yes you are reading me correctly.


:thinking:

So under his theory, as I understand his theory, any Federal tax (not just the income tax) imposed in title 26 could be legally assessed only if the tax were somehow related to alcohol, etc. Indeed, the very first assessment statute cited by the Troll is section 6201, which provides in part:

The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law [ . . . ]


--from 26 USC section 6201(a) (underlining added).

The underlined reference to “this title” is a reference to the title of the United States Code in which section 6201 is located -- namely, title 26, a codification of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The assessment authority under section 6201 applies, by its very terms, to ALL TAXES imposed by THIS TITLE. The assessment authority granted to the Secretary by Congress in section 6201 applies to the assessments of “all taxes” (including interest, penalties, etc.) imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, title 26 of the U.S. Code.

Setting aside Federal income taxes, under the troll’s goofy theory:

-----an assessment of a tax on certain transfers of property upon death (section 2001 of title 26 of the U.S. Code) could not be valid unless the transfers of property were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:shrug:

-----an assessment of a tax on certain transfers of property by gift (section 2501) could not be valid unless the transfers of property were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:?

-----an assessment of the tax on certain sales of luxury passenger vehicles (section 4001) could not be valid unless the sale of the vehicle were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:haha:

-----an assessment of the tax on fuel used in commercial transportation on inland waterways (section 4042) could not be valid unless the fuel were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:sarcastic:

-----an assessment of the tax on certain retail sales of heavy trucks and trailers (section 4051) could not be valid unless the trucks and trailers were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:(

-----an assessment of the tax on the sales of certain automobiles (section 4064) could not be valid unless the automobile also related to “alcohol”, etc.

:brickwall:

-----an assessment of the tax on certain sales of certain vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, hepatitis A and B, chicken pox, etc. (sections 4131 and 4132) could not be valid unless the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, hepatitis A and B, chicken pox, etc., were related to “alcohol”, etc.

:brickwall: :brickwall:

-----an assessment of the tax on the sales of sport fishing equipment and bows and arrows (section 4161) could not be valid unless the fishing equipment or bows and arrows were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:brickwall: :brickwall: :brickwall:

-----an assessment of the tax on amounts paid for certain kinds of air transportation (section 4261) could not be valid unless the air transportation were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:snicker:

-----an assessment of the tax on the issuances of certain insurance policies (section 4371) could not be valid unless the issuance of the insurance policy were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:!:

-----an assessment of the tax on the receipt of crude oil at an oil refinery located in the United States (section 4611) could not be valid unless the crude oil were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:|

-----an assessment of the tax on certain sales of ozone depleting chemicals, etc. (section 4681) could not be valid unless the chemicals were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:beatinghorse:

-----an assessment of the tax on the receipt of a “golden parachute payment” (section 4999 and section 280G(b)) could not be valid unless the payment were somehow related to “alcohol”, etc.

:P

The idea that a grown man of 50 years of age could actually believe that the publishing of a list of sections of the Internal Revenue Code in the Federal Register somehow means that the assessment of a Federal income tax -- or the assessment of any of these other taxes -- imposed under title 26 of the U.S. Code could somehow be valid only if the tax, etc., were somehow related to alcohol, etc., is hilarious.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

noblepa
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:20 pm

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby noblepa » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:40 pm

Perhaps I am mistaken, but when I read what has been written here about Title 27, and reading the snippets of that title that are reproduced here, I get the impression that we are talking about two different things.

Our troll seems to be assuming that the Internal Revenue Service is the only agency of the US government that collects any form of taxes, so any statute that mentions taxes must apply to the IRS. That isn't true, is it?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms collects taxes on those items, but does not collect taxes on income. If I am reading correctly, Title 27 gives the BATF the authority to collect such taxes. These taxes are more akin to sales taxes than to income taxes. If someone sells a carton of cigarettes, BATF collects a tax. My brother owns a fully automatic M-16 machine gun. When he purchased it, he had to pay a transfer tax to the BATF.

The IRS, on the other hand, gets its authority to collect income tax from Title 26.

Isn't he confusing a statute covering the BATF (Title 27) with one covering the IRS (Title 26). Apples and oranges. Does Title 27 have anything at all to do with INCOME taxes?

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby Famspear » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:48 pm

noblepa wrote:.....Isn't he confusing a statute covering the BATF (Title 27) with one covering the IRS (Title 26). Apples and oranges. Does Title 27 have anything at all to do with INCOME taxes?


Neither title 27 of the United States Code nor title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations have anything to do with Federal income taxes.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

SquatloosianTroll
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:28 pm

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby SquatloosianTroll » Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:31 am

Famspear wrote:
noblepa wrote:.....Isn't he confusing a statute covering the BATF (Title 27) with one covering the IRS (Title 26). Apples and oranges. Does Title 27 have anything at all to do with INCOME taxes?


Neither title 27 of the United States Code nor title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations have anything to do with Federal income taxes.


So you don't receive an income from selling beer, wine, or liquor? Which, by the way, is an excise tax. "...and subject to an INCOME TAX under the EXCISE LAWS of the United States"

On another note: 26 U.S. Code Part II - ITEMS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME
None of the cited items are applicable to my situation

26 U.S. Code Part III - ITEMS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME
Neither are any of these.

I will ask it again: Compensation for services. What services am I being compensated for?

And how do you reconcile "all US citizens are required to file and pay the Federal Income Tax when someone reads this regarding withholding agents:

(d)Beneficial owner's or payee's claim of U.S. status -

(1)In general. Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a withholding agent is not required to withhold under chapter 3 of the Code on payments to a U.S. payee, to a person presumed to be a U.S. payee in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, or to a person that the withholding agent may treat as a U.S. beneficial owner of the payment. Absent actual knowledge or reason to know otherwise, a withholding agent may rely on the provisions of this paragraph (d) in order to determine whether to treat a payee or beneficial owner as a U.S. person.

There are other examples similar to this, but right now I am going to go enjoy my daughters birthday dinner and cake.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby Famspear » Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:45 am

SquatloosianTroll wrote:So you don't receive an income from selling beer, wine, or liquor? Which, by the way, is an excise tax. "...and subject to an INCOME TAX under the EXCISE LAWS of the United States"


No, I don't received an income from selling beer, wine, or liquor. If you sell such things, YOU receive an income from selling them.

So what? State a point.

On another note: 26 U.S. Code Part II - ITEMS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME
None of the cited items are applicable to my situation


Nobody here cares. The law doesn't care either. Section 61 means exactly what it says. We've already been through this. The law is not going to change for you, Troll.

I will ask it again: Compensation for services. What services am I being compensated for?


I don't know. And I don't care. What services if any are you providing, Troll? What if any compensation are you receiving?

Make a coherent point.

And how do you reconcile "all US citizens are required to file and pay the Federal Income Tax when someone reads this regarding withholding agents:

(d)Beneficial owner's or payee's claim of U.S. status -

(1)In general. Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a withholding agent is not required to withhold under chapter 3 of the Code on payments to a U.S. payee, to a person presumed to be a U.S. payee in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, or to a person that the withholding agent may treat as a U.S. beneficial owner of the payment. Absent actual knowledge or reason to know otherwise, a withholding agent may rely on the provisions of this paragraph (d) in order to determine whether to treat a payee or beneficial owner as a U.S. person.


Why do you think a "reconciliation" is needed here?

Troll, it is obvious from your incoherent writing that your thoughts are disjointed and confused.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5641
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:46 am

I will ask it again: Compensation for services. What services am I being compensated for?


And he will ask, and ask, and ask, and ask for as long as you are willing to play with him.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby NYGman » Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:38 am

Burnaby49 wrote:
I will ask it again: Compensation for services. What services am I being compensated for?


And he will ask, and ask, and ask, and ask for as long as you are willing to play with him.


I gave up long ago on this one. It takes a special type of stupid to consistently ask the same question over and over again, even after getting the right answer and completely ignoring s61, quoting selective code sections out of context. Classic idiot, with appropriate troll name. I expect he wants to go back and brag about getting one over on the tax experts here, because we couldn't answer his incoherent question. Besides Fam, Wes, and others have this well and truly covered.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.

User avatar
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby NYGman » Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:39 am

Burnaby49 wrote:
I will ask it again: Compensation for services. What services am I being compensated for?


And he will ask, and ask, and ask, and ask for as long as you are willing to play with him.


I gave up long ago on this one. It takes a special type of stupid to consistently ask the same question over and over again, even after getting the right answer and completely ignoring s61, quoting selective code sections out of context. Classic idiot, with appropriate troll name. I expect he wants to go back and brag about getting one over on the tax experts here, because we couldn't answer his incoherent question. Besides Fam, Wes, and others have this well and truly covered.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.

noblepa
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:20 pm

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby noblepa » Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:20 am

SquatloosianTroll wrote:
Famspear wrote:
noblepa wrote:.....Isn't he confusing a statute covering the BATF (Title 27) with one covering the IRS (Title 26). Apples and oranges. Does Title 27 have anything at all to do with INCOME taxes?


Neither title 27 of the United States Code nor title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations have anything to do with Federal income taxes.


So you don't receive an income from selling beer, wine, or liquor? Which, by the way, is an excise tax. "...and subject to an INCOME TAX under the EXCISE LAWS of the United States"

On another note: 26 U.S. Code Part II - ITEMS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME
None of the cited items are applicable to my situation

26 U.S. Code Part III - ITEMS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME
Neither are any of these.

I will ask it again: Compensation for services. What services am I being compensated for?

And how do you reconcile "all US citizens are required to file and pay the Federal Income Tax when someone reads this regarding withholding agents:

(d)Beneficial owner's or payee's claim of U.S. status -

(1)In general. Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a withholding agent is not required to withhold under chapter 3 of the Code on payments to a U.S. payee, to a person presumed to be a U.S. payee in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, or to a person that the withholding agent may treat as a U.S. beneficial owner of the payment. Absent actual knowledge or reason to know otherwise, a withholding agent may rely on the provisions of this paragraph (d) in order to determine whether to treat a payee or beneficial owner as a U.S. person.

There are other examples similar to this, but right now I am going to go enjoy my daughters birthday dinner and cake.


I am not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that the excise taxes collected on the sale of alcohol, tobacco or firearms, are like sales taxes. They are taxes imposed on certain transactions. Even a tax-exempt organization selling those things would be required to collect the tax.I once worked in a religious bookstore, operated by a Catholic monastery. Trust me, we collected sales tax on the sales we made, although we did not sell alcohol, tobacco or firearms.

If I own a convenience store, I collect tax on the cigarettes, beer and such, that I sell, although, in most cases, the tax is added at the wholesale level, so it is built into the price I pay for the merchandise. The tax is on the transaction, not my income. The wholesaler pays the tax to the BATF.

Then, in April of each year, when I file my form 1040, I pay tax on the profit I made from those sales, along with the profit I made selling bread, sandwiches, magazines, umbrellas, etc.

Even if my business lost money, and I had no taxable income to report on that 1040, the excise tax on the cigarettes and beer that I sold would still be paid.

SquatloosianTroll
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:28 pm

Re: Tax Code Is Gibberish So I Don't Owe

Postby SquatloosianTroll » Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:58 am

NYGman wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:
I will ask it again: Compensation for services. What services am I being compensated for?


And he will ask, and ask, and ask, and ask for as long as you are willing to play with him.


I gave up long ago on this one. It takes a special type of stupid to consistently ask the same question over and over again, even after getting the right answer and completely ignoring s61, quoting selective code sections out of context. Classic idiot, with appropriate troll name. I expect he wants to go back and brag about getting one over on the tax experts here, because we couldn't answer his incoherent question. Besides Fam, Wes, and others have this well and truly covered.


Here are the 20 diversionary tactics toxic people use to silence and degrade you.

[Moderator snips lengthy, previously-posted copyright violation. - WS]


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest