Otto Skinner

[Famspear]

I'm still laughing about this statement from david:

So, if state government courts recognized that " Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege "( Jack above @ p 456 ), there's no way in heck it could have been gifted to the US Government by the Original Governments.

David seems to be laboring under the delusion that "state governments" somehow "recognized" that a state could not impose a state income tax -- because the "right to receive income or earnings" was a right that "cannot be taxed as a privilege". Yet, he bases this idiotic idea on a court ruling from ONE STATE -- Tennessee!

This was a Tennessee case -- involving Tennessee law. Not only does it not apply to U.S. federal tax law, it does not apply to the law of any state other than Tennessee.
Many, many states have state income tax laws that impose a state income tax on the "privilege" (if you want to call it that) of receiving income or earnings. Yet, for david's "logic" to work, it would seem to have to be the case that because the constitution of Tennessee prohibits (or at the time the case was decided, prohibited) a state income tax, this somehow meant that NO state could have a state income tax, either -- regardless of what the constitution of that other state said -- and that therefore, somehow, the U.S. Constitution also could not allow an income tax.

Or, perhaps david thinks that states other than Tennessee could have such a valid state income tax, but that the "original states" as a group still could not validly empower the U.S. Congress, under the U.S. Constitution, to impose a federal income tax.

Either way, david's theory -- that he can interpret the scope of the federal taxing power based on a state court decision from Tennessee -- is beyond goofy.

[Famspear]

....As far as I'm concerned, only the 10 Commandments were written in stone, everything else is merely reasonable colorable arguments with reference to opinions expressed with pen ON paper. Some opinions simply carry more weight....

Well, david, you're wrong. For example, your argument -- that the U.S. Congress cannot validly impose the U.S. federal income tax on your earnings because of something you read in a Tennessee court case involving the validity of a Tennessee state income tax -- is not a "reasonable colorable argument" with respect to anything. It's not a question of someone else's opinion "simply carrying more weight" that your opinion. Your opinion on this point carries no weight at all. Your opinion on this point has absolutely no conceivable, reasonable, colorable, or even remotely possible validity under American law.

Furthermore, if you were to present that argument in a court of law, you could be penalized for taking a legally frivolous position.

[Pottapaug1938]

....As far as I'm concerned, only the 10 Commandments were written in stone, everything else is merely reasonable colorable arguments with reference to opinions expressed with pen ON paper. Some opinions simply carry more weight....

Well, david, you're wrong. For example, your argument -- that the U.S. Congress cannot validly impose the U.S. federal income tax on your earnings because of something you read in a Tennessee court case involving the validity of a Tennessee state income tax -- is not a "reasonable colorable argument" with respect to anything. It's not a question of someone else's opinion "simply carrying more weight" that your opinion. Your opinion on this point carries no weight at all. Your opinion on this point has absolutely no conceivable, reasonable, colorable, or even remotely possible validity under American law.

Furthermore, if you were to present that argument in a court of law, you could be penalized for taking a legally frivolous position.

david is one of the people who seem to think that, since the decision of an appellate court is styled "an opinion", the decision can be interpreted as being nothing more than a suggestion, by the justices, as to what they think that the law might be. david evidently feels that, since the court has an "opinion" and that he also has an "opinion", his opinion is entitled to just as much weight as that of the court. Yeah, that viewpoint has absolutely no validity; but it's much more comforting for david to feel as he does.

Hey, david -- in my opinion, the Supreme Court has turned in some real stinkers among its opinions of the past few years; but until and unless someone can convince the Court that my opinion is more in harmony with the law than theirs, my opinion just doesn't count. Neither does yours.

[JamesVincent]

We don't need quotes from the Cheek decision. I was studying the Cheek decision long before you ever even heard of it. It's one of the most famous U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving federal income taxes. The Wikipedia article on the Cheek case lays it out clearly. I know that because I myself wrote most of the Wikipedia article.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Cheek a precedent used to determine whether or not someone knowingly and willfully broke the law or were honestly confused or unable to comprehend the law? That would seem the exact opposite of what tax protestors would want since they know the law better then the judges, and attorneys, and the IRS, and accountants, and etc..

[AndyK]

Quick search of the U.S. Tax Court website.

Searched all opinions containing "cheek"

15 hits referring to "Cheek Defense" or "Cheek v. United States", one for an alleged real estate loss due to interference with the endangered golden cheek warbler, and one about the deductability of a dentist's x-ray machine which orbits the patient's cheek.

Go figure.

[david]

Thank you James Vincent @ 11:13 today. Confusion..... at least for me. My opinion is inconsequential. It Hurts no one. If someone perceives the result of my act with regard to my opinion injurous to that person, let him take action. But, BEWARE!! the only action acceptable is before a court, the jury will decide.
Why hasn't anybody referred me to 26 USC 1 (c)?
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual .... a tax determined in accordance with the following table:..... If taxable income is: The tax is: ".
I think we all agree that the decisions of Pollock and Farmer and lots of others are very clear that the US congress has authority to tax every person, every thing identified as property, and every act.
I think we all agree that Congress may impose with regard to all people and things and acts taxes in 1 of 2 specific ways, by count and apportionment among the states, or by units of fruit resulting from acts.
I think we all agree that congress may tax our head and/or the fruits of our head according to numeration and apportionment among the states. I think that means " count the total of the subject to be taxed within the reach of the US Const. then divide the tax equally between the states."..... It dosn't appear to me that 26 USC 1 (c) does that, no mention of total number of fruit defined as "income" to be taxed nationwide nor each state burden according to that count.....
I think we all agree that congress may tax the activity of using our heads to produce fruit, each specific act uniformly, regardless of how often it is engaged in and regardless of the number of fruit produced anywhere within the reach of the US Const.. I think that means that a specific act of using my head to create a particular friut can be taxed according to the value of the specific fruit, as in the value 1 gallon of fermented fruit juice produced or the value 1 gallon of fuel consumed on public ways..... A clear example of this could be.... 26 USC 5001 (a) (1). "There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon....". This act applies to all distilled spirits regardless of the definition of persons engaging in the act of distilling. This act applies to all gallons distilled, whether a person holds a license to distill or not. And this act taxes each specific gallon resulting equally. As far as I can tell, 26 USC 1 (c) does not specify any act which produces any specific fruit taxed at the rate of $??.?? on each unit of fruit......
I can find no relationship between what I think we all agree as taxable and how it may be taxed and 26 USC 1 (c). Definitions of direct, indirect, imposts, excises, W-2's, all are inconsequential until a clear determination can be found that 26 USC (c) either counts and shares or reaches the act.
Until I become aware of any authority which convinces me 26USC 1 (c) fits within counts and shares or reaches the act, or, a jury does the convincing for me, I can not in good concience admit to anything with regard to 26 USC 1 (c) and any directly related statutes.
The responsibility of complaint and burden of proof rests with the one perceiving an injury. I perceive no further injury after '98.
Who knows, maybe someday an eager beaver IRS guy will take offense to my claim that I'm not licensed and will file a complaint. It didn't happen the last time. However if that does happen, rest assured I'll publish every scrap of documents and public record I can find. And.... I might just satisfy some of you by loosing.
Sean Connery once said in some movie "If you can't pay the time, don't do the crime." I think a few days in the clink and/or a couple Federal Reserve Notes a reasonable risk for doing what I believe in. It's a heck of a lot cheaper than my head that I risked from '68 to '70.
Anybody think I'm protesting or denying anything?
David

[Famspear]

....As far as I can tell, 26 USC 1 (c) does not specify any act which produces any specific fruit taxed at the rate of $??.?? on each unit of fruit......
I can find no relationship between what I think we all agree as taxable and how it may be taxed and 26 USC 1 (c).....

Sure you can. You just don't agree with the law.

...Definitions of direct, indirect, imposts, excises, W-2's, all are inconsequential until a clear determination can be found that 26 USC (c) either counts and shares or reaches the act.
Until I become aware of any authority which convinces me 26USC 1 (c) fits within counts and shares or reaches the act, or, a jury does the convincing for me, I can not in good concience admit to anything with regard to 26 USC 1 (c) and any directly related statutes.

That's baloney. You just don't agree with the law.

The responsibility of complaint and burden of proof rests with the one perceiving an injury. I perceive no further injury after '98....

That's gibberish.

Anybody think I'm protesting or denying anything?

You're espousing tax protester arguments. You're a tax protester -- and a tax denier. So, the answer is "yes."

[david]

Hey Famspear, you're great getting back to me so quick and I'm starting to really enjoy your challenges. You didn't disagree with the count and divide amongst the states for whatever reason. As to the second part, how's this?:: There is hereby imposed on the harvest of all shellfish within the US a tax at the rate of $40.13 on each bushel harvested. I would have no argument or confusion whatsoever. Would you? 26 USC 1 (c) doesn't even remotely resemble that. I don't disagree with the law, I don't comprehend it and I'm trying.
We can't even begin to argue definitions until we have figured out whether 26 USC 1 (c) declares a total and then divides the tax assessed between the states or taxes an act at a rate per unit produced.
How am I supposed to agree or disagree with 26 USC 1 (c) if it is uncomprehendable to me? I used to eat a lot of baloney when I wore short pants, loved it all smeared up with mayonnaise and rolled in a tube.
Burden of proof..... If I don't comprehend the law, no skin off my nose and I'll go on my merry way. I have no obligation to run into court hollering something stooped like "The Law is UNConstitutional!!". If somebody gets their panties in a wad because I'm not obeying the law, it is their responsibility to bring it before a court where I am ENTITLED to raise doubt before a jury, along with the help of Constitutionally guaranteed meaningful and competent assistance of counsel, not co-counsel (what ever that is). Plaintiff bears the burden of proof, not the defendant. Now, if a plaintiff can convince a jury that 26 USC 1 (c) resembles a tax according to count and divide or tax per unit produced, well,,,,,,, guess I'll have to agree. Gibberish? That's what Spanish language sounds to me. I thought you and I were conversing in Yankee English. And I think we both have the right to disagree with regard to the definition of my actions.
Thanks, David

[Famspear]

Hey Famspear, you're great getting back to me so quick and I'm starting to really enjoy your challenges. You didn't disagree with the count and divide amongst the states for whatever reason....

Your posting was gibberish. How's that for a response?

As to the second part, how's this?:: There is hereby imposed on the harvest of all shellfish within the US a tax at the rate of $40.13 on each bushel harvested. I would have no argument or confusion whatsoever. Would you? 26 USC 1 (c) doesn't even remotely resemble that.....

That's gibberish, too, david.

I don't disagree with the law, I don't comprehend it and I'm trying....

Yes, you do comprehend the law, and yes you do disagree with the law. You know exactly what the law is -- you simply refuse to accept it. And your tactic in this thread is to print gibberish. You're not being honest with us, and you're not being honest with yourself.

We can't even begin to argue definitions until we have figured out whether 26 USC 1 (c) declares a total and then divides the tax assessed between the states or taxes an act at a rate per unit produced....

That's more gibberish, david.

How am I supposed to agree or disagree with 26 USC 1 (c) if it is uncomprehendable to me? I used to eat a lot of baloney when I wore short pants, loved it all smeared up with mayonnaise and rolled in a tube...

It's not "uncomprehendable" to you. You comprehend that code provision very well. You simply refuse to accept it. You understand perfectly well what the law is regarding the U.S. federal income tax. You are well aware that the garbage you've been posting about Tennessee court decisions, and "fruits" and "section 5001" is just your version of tax protester idiocy.

Burden of proof..... If I don't comprehend the law, no skin off my nose and I'll go on my merry way. I have no obligation to run into court hollering something stooped [sic] like "The Law is UNConstitutional!!". If somebody gets their panties in a wad because I'm not obeying the law, it is their responsibility to bring it before a court where I am ENTITLED to raise doubt before a jury, along with the help of Constitutionally guaranteed meaningful and competent assistance of counsel, not co-counsel (what ever that is). Plaintiff bears the burden of proof, not the defendant....

That's just more rhetoric, david. You're not fooling anyone.

Now, if a plaintiff can convince a jury that 26 USC 1 (c) resembles a tax according to count and divide or tax per unit produced, well,,,,,,, guess I'll have to agree. Gibberish? That's what Spanish language sounds to me. I thought you and I were conversing in Yankee English. And I think we both have the right to disagree with regard to the definition of my actions.....

No, david, you're writing gibberish.

"Gibberish. unintelligible or meaningless language [ . . . ] pretentious or needlessly obscure language." Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 484, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th Ed. 1976).

And you arguments about what the law is are frivolous.

Frivolous. of little value or importance; trifling; trivial [ . . . ] not properly serious or sensible; silly and light-minded; giddy". Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 560, World Publishing Co. (2d Coll. Ed. 1978).

"Frivolous. of little weight or importance [ . . . ] lacking in seriousness [ . . . ]". Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 461, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th Ed. 1976).

"Frivolous. Unworthy of serious attention; trivial [ . . .] inappropriately silly". American Heritage Dictionary, p. 535, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2d Coll. Ed. 1985).

[Pottapaug1938]

david, why should I care in the least about how shellfish are taxed? The answer has no bearing on to me, except as I may or may not eat shellfish. If you are talking about INCOME tax, then that DOES have a bearing on my life.

However, I do not have the time or desire to recapitulate, here, the legal reasoning for the premise that each and every person who receives income within the United States is subject to the income tax laws. Suffice it to say that numerous thread on Quatloos will provide all the proof that you should need that 1) Congress has always had the power to tax incomes; and 2) the 16th Amendment removed the prior requirements that the income tax be apportioned among the states based on population, or that the source of the income be determined before imposition of the tax. These principles are so well settled that anyone who tries to offer arguments to the contrary, which have been universally and rejected in the past, can expect to have the arguments labeled "frivolous" and ignored. You might look for the Wnuck v. Commissioner decision to see why no further discussion is made of these frivolous arguments.

[david]

Pottapaug 1938 I have to deal with this first!!!!.."2) the 16th Amendment removed the prior requirements that the income tax be apportioned among the states based on population, or that the source of the income be determined before imposition of the tax.". According to my reading of Bushharber (spelling?), Staton, Flint, and a few others that don't readily come to mind, the 16th Amendment PREVENTS exactly what you claim it does.
I just used shellfish to try to illustrate an activity tax. How about this....There is hereby imposed a tax on the receipt of income at the rate of $35.00 per $100.00. I could understand that. But,,, 26 USC 1 (c) doesn't say that.
I'll get back to you on that prevents thing with the page number and just a tiny piece of cut and paste. I am totally amazed that I am still so shaky after reading that.
David

[AndyK]

David, like unfortunately before him, has shot his arrow into the barn and is now painting his bullseye around it.

In other words, he has determined that he is not going to pay income taxes and is now contorting any possible rational for this out of everything he can find.

What he does or says matters not.

If he fails to file or pay and has sufficient income to pique the attention of the IRS, he will receive a series of letters related to his failure to pay.

Eventually, if he ignores all of them, he will a Notice Of Federal Tax Lien against his assets for the balance of what he owes plus interest and penalties.

If his tax evasion has been sufficiently egregious, he might receive a visit from IRS CID staff armed with a search warrant and a warrant for his arrest.

All of this might take years (the IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded) or, if he's just a pisant evader, might never happen.

Who cares? David has made himself immune to any rational answers regarding his responsibility and is not worthy of any additional waste of electrons.

[david]

Pottapaug 1938 Brushaber v Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 US 1, at 19 (1916)
"a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the PREVENTION (emphasis added dk) of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived...." (having trouble figuring out the tool bar and quote button). Ummm,, no new mysterious tax that's neither property nor activity. I'm really surprised nobody else has commented about your interpretation.
AndyK,,, maybe it is more like I shot an arrow into the sky and claimed I hit it so I own it? Anyway, I have confusion, it's valid to me. That you are even engaging tells me you have some interest, even if that interest hides an ulterior motive. You are helping me. Thanks..... I THINK I have some comprehension. The IRS sent me a letter of inquiry including threats of possible dire consequences. Under distrait, I responded to that inquiry with my reason for not filing. The IRS kindly wrote me back instead of leaving me hanging in endless terrified anticipation. The IRS said "Oh, ok, thanks, bye." To the thunderous chorus of bellowing voices "Show me the paper!!!" I can give the latest correspondence. My Revocation process will have to wait until after April 4/14. I'm waiting for quixit in my PM and anyone else in my e-mail published in my previous post.
David

[Famspear]

Pottapaug 1938 Brushaber v Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 US 1, at 19 (1916)
"a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the PREVENTION (emphasis added dk) of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived...." (having trouble figuring out the tool bar and quote button). Ummm,, no new mysterious tax that's neither property nor activity. I'm really surprised nobody else has commented about your interpretation.

That's because everyone here -- except you -- understands what we're reading when we read that passage from Brushaber.

The Supreme Court in that case -- and in the other cases you cited -- UPHELD the constitutionality of the U.S. federal income tax. And at no time was that tax ever interpreted the way you, david, claim the law should be interpreted. We have dealt with people like you on Brushaber over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Here are the three main holdings by the Supreme Court in Brushaber:

1. The Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes be apportioned among the states according to population (Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution), and the federal income tax is constitutional even though it is not apportioned among the states according to each state's population.

2. The federal income tax does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law.

3. The federal income tax does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

[Pottapaug1938]

Pottapaug 1938 Brushaber v Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 US 1, at 19 (1916)
"a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the PREVENTION (emphasis added dk) of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived...." (having trouble figuring out the tool bar and quote button). Ummm,, no new mysterious tax that's neither property nor activity. I'm really surprised nobody else has commented about your interpretation.

Thank you very much, david, for confirming what I said is true. You have just pointed out that the Brushaber case, among other things, said that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent anyone from insisting on the need to resort to the sources of the income to be taxed. It says that incomes may be taxed, no matter what the source of that income is. Thanks again!

[AndyK]

...
The IRS sent me a letter of inquiry including threats of possible dire consequences. Under distrait [sic], I responded to that inquiry with my reason for not filing. The IRS kindly wrote me back instead of leaving me hanging in endless terrified anticipation. The IRS said "Oh, ok, thanks, bye."
...
David

WRONG

The IRS never sends a letter saying "Oh, ok, thanks, bye." or anything close to that in content or language.

Absent you providing (appropriately sanitized) copies of the various correspondence or their specific language and letter numbers, it is becoming to become necessary to assume that you are either hallucinating or simply a blatant liar.

[david]

Andy,,,, grixit has a copy of that letter sitting in his e-mail box right now. You can argue with him with regard to IRS procedure and whether of not those letters are real. By the way, there's NO redacting on them.
Pottapaug1938 and Famspear, you are absolutely correct that " Brushaber " clearly admits that "income" can be taxed without resort to the source. However, it must then follow the procedure of count and divide which 26USC1 (c) clearly does not do.
I anticipate that one day I might hear 10 pairs of jackboots marching to my door, my suddenly being exposed to numerous hobnailed soles, given an intimate view of the floor while feeling 10 shotgun barrels deeply inserted into uncomfortable places on my back, and then a funny looking little bald headed guy with a squeaky voice announcing: the reason for his visit; and, informing me I have the right to remain silent, I have the right to meaningful and competent assistance of counsel to inform me of my rights and the law and to guide me thru the rules of procedure (the right to have some idiot represent me and speak in my name is preposterous) and some other stuff and I'll say ok. As soon after I'm placed in a dark moldy wet dungeon cell, chained to the wall, I will try to get a letter to the court asking who my assistance of counsel will be and when he will present himself to me. Then I will include in that letter that, although the complaint claims "Willful failure to file", it fails to point out why I might be required to file in the first place (Sanocki ? ). If the court doesn't know but sends the complaint to a jury, I will have the right to question the signing person of the complaint before that jury, I will enjoy the right to express my views and be cross-examined with regard to them, and I will enjoy the right of a dis-interested third party (jury) decision whose opinion will prevail, I can ask for no more than that.
That's my opinion, nobody has to agree with it right now. I just thought I'd share my opinion and experience with you and let you make your own decisions. I appreciate your efforts to blast holes in it. I have my own opinion, only I am accountable for the consequences of actions with regard to my opinion. Just don't blame me for the consequences of your own actions.
I'll wait till we see what grixit has to say before I make any more posts.
Oh yeah, Famspear, thanks again for your earlier response to my cry for help. And I'm glad that you found something in my opinions that gave you the relief of laughter.
David

[Duke2Earl]

What "David" seems unwilling to address is the absolute fact that many people who have sprouted the exact same gibberish he regurgitates have been financially ruined, lives and families destroyed, and/or incarcerated. If he wants to run down that road far be it from me to discourage him. In other words, David.... good luck with that. I am sure it is peachy while you remain undetected in the weeds, but it is very likely that someday they will find you and then you ought to come here bragging how wonderfully it is working out for you.

Have a nice law breaking life and see what that gets you.

[Famspear]

Andy,,,, grixit has a copy of that letter sitting in his e-mail box right now. You can argue with him with regard to IRS procedure and whether of not those letters are real. By the way, there's NO redacting on them.
Pottapaug1938 and Famspear, you are absolutely correct that " Brushaber " clearly admits that "income" can be taxed without resort to the source. However, it must then follow the procedure of count and divide which 26USC1 (c) clearly does not do.

No, david. There is no requirement in federal income tax law for "following the procedure of count and divide". You are writing more gibberish.

I anticipate that one day I might hear 10 pairs of jackboots marching to my door, my suddenly being exposed to numerous hobnailed soles, given an intimate view of the floor while feeling 10 shotgun barrels deeply inserted into uncomfortable places on my back, and then a funny looking little bald headed guy with a squeaky voice announcing: the reason for his visit; and, informing me I have the right to remain silent......

You may be right.

As soon after I'm placed in a dark moldy wet dungeon cell, chained to the wall, I will try to get a letter to the court asking who my assistance of counsel will be and when he will present himself to me. Then I will include in that letter that, although the complaint claims "Willful failure to file", it fails to point out why I might be required to file in the first place (Sanocki ? ). If the court doesn't know but sends the complaint to a jury, I will have the right to question the signing person of the complaint before that jury, I will enjoy the right to express my views and be cross-examined with regard to them, and I will enjoy the right of a dis-interested third party (jury) decision whose opinion will prevail, I can ask for no more than that.....

Thank you for sharing that with us.

....Just don't blame me for the consequences of your own actions.....

OK.

....Oh yeah, Famspear, thanks again for your earlier response to my cry for help. And I'm glad that you found something in my opinions that gave you the relief of laughter.
David

You're welcome.

[The Observer]

grixit has a copy of that letter sitting in his e-mail box right now. You can argue with him with regard to IRS procedure and whether of not those letters are real. By the way, there's NO redacting on them.

I am sure what we are going to see is a typical pattern/form letter that the IRS sends out acknowledging receipt of your response to their earlier letter. Such practice is to accept the explanation provided by the taxpayer until such time that the IRS can verify if the explanation is correct, accurate and complies with the tax laws. In other words, the IRS reserves the right to change their initial response if it turns out that the taxpayer was less than honest or was dealing in word games in trying to evade their responsibility to comply with the tax laws.

What we are not going to see is a letter that explicitly states that the IRS agrees with your "interpretation" of the tax laws and court rulings that you believe makes you not liable.