David the Non Taxpayer?

[nattyb]

However, the letters posted at the top of this Topic do lead at least me to believe there IS something to Otto's so-called 'Loophole'.

One of the best bit of wisdom I ever learned was this: Logic seeks truth- Rhetoric seeks to win an argument.
Otto Skinner's rhetoric is nothing but an illogical scam, and, david, you have fallen for it. His basic "loophole" is to try to make them prove you are a "taxpayer" as if the claim of being a "nontaxpayer" has any meaning. He then totally obfuscates that Economy case he loves to reference as his authority.
Here is the truth: In the Economy case, the court held that only THE taxpayer could claim a refund. A third party had no standing to claim THE taxpayer's refund. The court called this third party a "nontaxpayer". There is no special meaning to the term "nontaxpayer". It is just a name the court decided to use.

The IRC defines a taxpayer as anyone who is liable for an internal revenue tax.
Congress has imposed a tax on income (no matter the activity).
Therefore, if you have income, you are called a "taxpayer" in regards to the income tax.

Skinner's argument is akin to getting a plaintiff to prove the defendant is indeed a "defendant" as if that term means something other than someone being sued.
I can go on about how Skinner is so illogical on his other claims if you want. His books are a joke to critical thinkers.

[notorial dissent]

That always presupposes that the person writing the letter is being factually honest on all points, which quite frankly David was not. The letter, like so many I have seen, was written to illicit a very specific answer, that supports the requester's agenda, not the real answer to the underlying question. When you entire position is founded on a falsehood, it can come as no surprise that the entire proposition is indeed just one more falsehood tacked on to another.

[Pottapaug1938]

A similar thread is active on Lost Horizons. Harvey, as usual, is one of the chief contributors:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 9&start=15

Garbage in, garbage out.

[The Observer]

Yes, but it is fun to watch them split up into pro and con sides as to whether david's letter is proof or not. Again, the "cons" are correct but for the wrong reasons.

[grixit]

Wait-- are they using the phrase "David the Non Taxpayer" because i did? I don't know whether to be flattered or flabbergasted.

And Noah says that David is winning. Or is that *WINNING*, in the Charlie Sheen sense of the word?

Also, our favorite soggy superhero, the Savage Submariner is there, still caught in the riptide.

Also: there was a reference to PH "telling off his son's school". Does that mean he tried to sovereign his way out of some requirement? Or did he show up at assembly and preach to the kids?

[Pottapaug1938]

And Noah says that David is winning. Or is that *WINNING*, in the Charlie Sheen sense of the word?

They use "winning" the way an army uses it when it conducts a surprise invasion of a neighboring country, and win a few of the initial battles -- quite forgetting that the country which they invaded has an army twenty times as powerful as theirs, and has repeatedly proved itself in battle before.

[AndyK]

For some reason ( Disconnect with truth ) David's letters posted on LoserHeads are somewhat different than what he 'released' to us.

Could it be that he is less than forthcoming with reality?

In any case, the letters, both here and at LH, contain enough identifying information -- It's funny that they don't have the brains to redact the case number -- to allow any of the resident jack-booted thugs to escalate David's case to someone with some clout. I'm truly sorry that I no longer have the resources or contacts to do so myself.

[Famspear]

They use "winning" the way an army uses it when it conducts a surprise invasion of a neighboring country, and win a few of the initial battles -- quite forgetting that the country which they invaded has an army twenty times as powerful as theirs, and has repeatedly proved itself in battle before.

Example: A few weeks after the German armies invaded Russia in 1941, the Nazi propaganda machine back home was declaring victory.

And we all know how that ended.....

[grixit]

Sovcit Defeats Truman!

[The Observer]

Example: A few weeks after the German armies invaded Russia in 1941, the Nazi propaganda machine back home was declaring victory.

Another example would have been the Japanese military covering up the results of the Battle of Midway and issuing press releases about the wonderful defeat that they had inflicted on the US Navy. The cover-up went so far as to segregate and isolate the surviving sailors of Kido Butai before they could blab about the real results to their relatives and friends. This was followed by a meticulous transfer of the sailors to the South Pacific without any chance to visit family - to such spots that were invaded over the next two years or otherwise cut off from Japan. Many Japanese did not learn of the true results of Midway until the war was over.

And we all know how that ended.....

Yeah, the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

[Famspear]

Yeah, the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

Where's that clip from Animal House?

[david]

For those of you who have given me so much help (all of the replies), thanks. Just to let you know, I stopped engaging because I returned from Jamaica, returned to my gainful employ, and haven't had any time to pursue my studies with you. My time is limited even now but I would like to continue as best I can, if you will.

When I went through Immigration in the Miami airport, no red lights flashed and no klaxons started blaring when my passport was scanned. The Officer smiled at me, said "Welcome home, sir." and I went on my way. When I got home, there was no 'Summons' nailed to my front door, and no nasty letters had or have arrived from the IRS or anyone claiming to represent it.

The series of letters grixit posted for me at the beginning of this thread were the result of a form 1099 a clam buyer (possibly mistakenly) sent to the IRS showing how much of a particular property he swapped me for my clams. There was no reference to "taxable" income, merely "non-employee compensation".

My right to harvest more shellfish than I can eat from town waters is recognized by a license the town issued me for a cost of $200. That's my municipal "income tax". My income derived from that harvesting is shellfish, property. I have to file a return with the town each year indicating how much of what kind of shellfish I harvested from town waters and about where.

My right to exchange that property with someone else licensed by the state to exchange that particular property is recognized by a license the state issued me for a cost of $250. That's my state "income tax". I have to file a return each month detailing when, where, how harvested ,what species , how much (lbs, count, bushels), and who I exchanged it with.

Neither return makes any inquiry with regard to what I received in exchange for my property.

All the IRS knows about my income is 'clams casino', 'steamed or fried clams', 'clam chowder', 'bait', or 'UGG!'. If the US legislature wants to license me also to harvest and/or exchange shellfish for different property, then I suppose the legislature can tax those activities in some way. However, so far it appears to me the legislature has chosen not to do so.

None of the cases and statutes I have been directed to by your replies have dealt with this subject. Any one know of anything?

Thanks, david

[Gregg]

There was no reference to "taxable" income, merely "non-employee compensation".

Which is taxable, both as part of what the law calls "all income from whatever source derived" and as self employment income which is subject to FICA and Medicare tax.

[notorial dissent]

I see David the Non Taxpayer, is still confused either willfully or otherwise, and still looking for excuses to go with his fantasy.

The licenses you get from the city or state to harvest or exchange shell fish, are just that licenses. As a side note, I would question whether the license from the city actually allows commercial action, it may well be just for "personal" use only, which means you could lose the right to that. The state license is also a big if as well. In any case, they are not "income tax", you have to pay those to do whatever you are doing whether you ever dig so much as a clam or whatever it is you do. The "return" you file with the city is a license requirement whether you catch anything or not, and is used to determine the status of the local system, just as is the "return" you file with the state for dispersal of catch is to track the status of the local fishing systems, nothing more. So first fallacies shot down.

The shellfish you catch and do not personally use and exchange off, in whatever fashion, with someone else becomes income to you whether you like it or not. So your cute word games aren't going to get you anywhere, except eventually in to a lot of trouble, and probably cost you your licenses.

[AndyK]

Then again, with its limited resources, the IRS doesn't always go after the small fish.

[Arthur Rubin]

Then again, with its limited resources, the IRS doesn't always go after the small fish.

... or small clams?

[AndyK]

Ba-dum-dum

less than 50 minutes. Not bad

[LPC]

Just to let you know, I stopped engaging because I returned from Jamaica, returned to my gainful employ, and haven't had any time to pursue my studies with you. My time is limited even now but I would like to continue as best I can, if you will.

Welcome back.

Just to bring you up to speed: Nothing has changed. You're still receiving income, and you're still both ignorant and wrong.

[JamesVincent]

David, whether you choose to believe it or not, you are still liable for income tax no matter how you finagle it (or try to follow someone else's finagling). If you are indeed self employed, as a sole proprietor, you must still fill out a Form 1040, long, and a Schedule C at a minimum. As far as the bartering goes, like was said before, it is still considered income. From whatever source derived, etc. etc. IIRC you would still need to fill out a 1099-MISC for the equivalent amount received in barter. And if you actually do it through a broker then you would have to fill out a 1099-B (?) and so would the broker.

Like Gregg said you are still liable for Medicare and FICA with holdings on top of your actual self employment tax. You know, not all of us are tax attorneys or CPAs or accountants, etc. but a good chunk of us are either business owners or people who have/ do run businesses. Any one of us would be happy to help you find ways to minimize your tax obligation..... but you would still have one.

And, quite frankly, if you weren't so friggin busy trying to find ways to not pay in you would probably find, like most TPs, that you would not only get a full refund, you would probably qualify for a good number of tax credits that would increase your refund to beyond what you paid in. Legally. Like many, many, many (read: almost all) of the other TP/ TDs out there you probably don't make enough to owe anything, yet the time spent trying to avoid not owing anything would still have a payday at the end, called Tax Court and possibly jail. Your call.

[Duke2Earl]

This is all the same standard egomaniac stuff. It's simply not fair that such a wonderful person such as David should have to pay taxes. And so rationalization steps in. Laws and courts could not be intended to apply such a person as David. He is above all that. It is simply our little petty, earthbound minds that refuse to understand the wonder and glory of David.