As the Fraud continues

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

I had an aquaintance who once told me that his uncle had a pretty good gig for selling new roofing jobs, especially to the elderly.

If it was a slate roof, he would carry pieces of slate and old, rusted pieces of metal flashing in his pocket; When he came down off the roof, he would show the pieces to the homeownwers, and say your roof is falling apart. This got their attention, along with the other props like an ad in the yellow pages, and a large truck with lots of equipment on it. Or, if he was actually doing the repair, he would create a new hole in the roof in a different area, and wait for the call. He didn't get every job because some people were wise enough to get a second estimate, but he didn't get busted for fraud, either.

Yet another example of an oily parasite. I hope that someone will tell Daniel Evans that I called him an oily, lying parasite, too. Maybe I'll be lucky enough for him to sue me.

The term "direct tax" is a little unclear; sure. And my roof is falling apart, too.

This is a report on Congressional Record:

Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws

By Howard Zaritsky, LEGISLATIVE Attorney, American Law Division, May 25, 1979, Report No. 79-131 A

..In Brushaber V. Union Pacific RR. Co. (1916), the Supreme Court held that the income tax, including a tax on dealings in property, was an INDIRECT TAX, and that:

"...the command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to the rule of apportionment by the consideration of the source from which the tax may be derived FORBIDS the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class class of excises, duties, and impost subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct tax" 240 U.S. 1 18-19 (1916)

It's still on record, Porter; look it up.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 03, 2001

Answers

This is a directive from the IRS Commissioner to field agents regarding the Brushaber descision.

http://www.taxtruth4u.com/TD2313.htm

I posted this during the argument with tag team Porter/Flint but they conveniently had no comment; maybe it wasn't shiny and new enough to get their attention.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 03, 2001.


I relly, really ought to know better, but here we go again.

So what? This directive says non-resident aliens have to pay an income tax. How does that say citizens of the United States don't have to pay an income tax?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 03, 2001.


The point is JBT, that there is no directive for U.S. citizens.

A clear directive involving citizens is illustrated below in the "Tax Imposed" thread.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 03, 2001.


KoFE has convinced me. From now on I will not file income tax.

If I get arrested, KoFE will be my bitch. If I don't, I shall leave the amount saved to my favorite faith-based initiative.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 03, 2001.


KOFE:

I have been reading you comments for years; still I know nothing about you. Where do you come from; who are you?

I will tell you a little bit about my family [you should also tell me about yours}.

One side settled in New York when it was a Dutch colony [not called New York]. On the other side they settled in the Boston area. We had family members at Bunker Hill and Yorktown. Later it was Shiloh and Cornith. I can give you the family history; or you could go to the museums at Harvard, Cornell or UVA; or a lot of other places.

Now, we think that the infrastructure problems that face the country are best solved by the US government; no matter how imperfect. I know what Jefferson said on matters such as religion and taxes, because, I have his original letters. They will go to Harvard.

Have you been to Afgan; I have; you would be happier there. Come one KOFE tell us a little about yourself.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 03, 2001.



One side settled in New York when it was a Dutch colony [not called New York].

You mean when it was called New Amsterdam?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 03, 2001.


JBT:

Yeah, it should have been obvious that the *point* of the code saying something in one place, is that it might not say something else about something different in some other place. How could you miss that?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 03, 2001.


KoFE, you're gonna hafta pay income taxes or go to jail. What you ought to do is look at your community needs and help to ask for that tax money back in the form of grants for all kinds of things your community might need.

If you choose jail, I'll send you books and stuff. But I don't think that will make up for the horror of being locked up.

-- helen (food@bank.school.programs.public.transportation), September 03, 2001.


Okay, I was gone all day but saw your reference to the tax imposed thread, went there and found this:

This statute illustrates clearly who is liable for what. Do a search in Title 26 , Subchapter B, Section 2001

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 01, 2001

I did a search and found Title 26, scrolled down to Subchapter B but as far as I can determine there is no Section 2001. Pleae check your refernece and give me a corrected one or point me to the right place so I can read up on this.

BTW, since you continue to press this arcane arguement (in a most obtuse manner I might add) I expect that you can assure me that you have read every bit of this rather massive piece of tax regulations.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 03, 2001.


Kofe,

Never mind the above. Doesn't the very first section of this statute settle the question. Sorry for the cut and paste but I want to see the answer to this. God knows why.

Sec. 1. Tax imposed STATUTE (a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and

(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),

a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- If taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $32,450 15% of taxable income. Over $32,450 but not over $78,400 $4,867.50, plus 28% of the excess over $32,450. Over $78,400 $17,733.50, plus 31% of the excess over $78,400. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

(b) Heads of households There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- If taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $26,050 15% of taxable income. Over $26,050 but not over $67,200 $3,907.50, plus 28% of the excess over $26,500. Over $67,200 $15,429.50, plus 31% of the excess over $67,200. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households) There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- If taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $19,450 15% of taxable income. Over $19,450 but not over $47,050 $2,917.50, plus 28% of the excess over $19,450. Over $47,050 $10,645.50, plus 31% of the excess over $47,050. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- If taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $16,225 15% of taxable income. Over $16,225 but not over $39,200 $2,433.75, plus 28% of the excess over $16,225. Over $39,200 $8,866.75, plus 31% of the excess over $39,200. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 03, 2001.



JBT. I'm sorry, that should have been SubTITLE B, section 2001.

Z, I'm not really interested in knowing about you; I already know more than I want to.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 04, 2001.


I desire the cellblock next to Lars.

-- sumer (I@aint.saying), September 04, 2001.

Kofe,

Okay, I assume you me this section:

Sec. 2101. Tax imposed  (a) Imposition Except as provided in section 2107, a tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate (determined as provided in section 2106) of every decedent nonresident not a citizen of the United States.

This reference is from a section of the tax code that states regulations concerning the taxes due on the estate of deceased non- resident citizens. What does that have to do with the requirement of all citizens being required to pay an income tax? I did not read further (since I doubt I will ever accumulate an estate worth taxing and it will be my kids problem not mine anyway) but I imagine that there is a tax due on the estate of deceased resident citizens too.

Please respond to my post of above that I believe (after reading all the definitions of a filing status) requires all citizens of the United States of America to pay a tax on income above the levels listed in the tables posted above. Does this section, the very first section of title 26, impose an income tax on the citizens of the Unoited States or not? If not, where in this basic section of title 26 do you see where it says it only applys to non-resident citizens or aliens?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 04, 2001.


P.S.

Have you read every bit of Title 26? If so, you are to be congratulated. If not, try reading some of it besides the sections that others want you to read or interpret for you.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 04, 2001.


JBT, Ill post an answer tommorow evening.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 04, 2001.


JBT, the reason for referencing B section 2001 is to illustrate what a mandated directive looks like.

It is telling you without a doubt that you, the citizen, must comply. It's legal and fair because it is not a direct tax, but an indirect tax on the transfer of property.

The ones you referenced above only apply to non resident aliens, or citizens working outside of the US, who receive foreign earned income. All of these statutes are made clear by cross referencing, but NOT automatic cross application.

The person or individual in SubCHAPTER B that they are talking about is not the US Citizen working in the US. If it was, there would be a clear directive such as B 2001.

The code doesn't lie, and there are no contradictions, but it is written to be inclusive in certain cases,(indirect) and exclusive in others.(direct) We've been trained to believe that we are to automatically assume it it talking about us, no matter where we happen to glance. But that's not how it was written.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 05, 2001.


Kofe,

Where in the references I posted above does it say that the tax imposed is only on non resident aliens, or citizens working of the US, who receive foreign earned income? I know I'm not up on tax law and I thouroughly despise reading IRS regulations with their countless cross references but this one seems fairly clear cut to me. the statute starts out by declaring that pretty much EVERYONE (as the above filing status definitions read when you cross reference) that has an income above the thresholds listed above has a tax imposed at the following levels and rates, etc. etc.

You are correct when you say that nonresident aliens are treated differently than citizens of the US, but only in the sense that they are defined differently. Anyone who earns a taxable income in the US is subject to a tax (as stated to be imposed under Title 26 of the US Code) if certain income levels are exceeded. Let's not digress into the allowable deductions which can reduced that income to below those levels. I would even hazard a gues that their is some tax liability if a citizens income is not earned in the US but I do not know the particular section that is covered in.

Anyway, I appreciate your response but I believe that you are avoiding the code section cited above and are stating that the words posted above say or mean something than what the actual words state. Please reread the above sections and tell me specifically there is any reference that the filing status' listed above apply only to nonresident aliens (I suppose you would claim that resident aliens who earn income in the US are not subject to tax) or the foreign earned income of US citizens.

I will be eagerly awaiting your reply.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 06, 2001.


JBT, "taxable income" is the phrase that prompts people to assume liability, when it really doesn't direct us to do anything.

It is stating that those with "taxable income" must comply with that statute. However, Citizens of the United States are not directed to file, unless they have foreign earned income.

So, you(the citizen working in the US) are not directed to file, and you are not directed NOT to file. But, you are coerced to file by pressure(not law) to assume liability, and when you submit, you are counted by the IRS as having liability because you filed.

I called the IRS and asked the equal opportunity employee that answered the phone to send me a copy of the law that directs me to file, before I file again. She said okay. I also said to her, does this seen like a reasonable request? She said yes. She would send it, although it would take awhile.

Next, I got a letter that stated, You could be incarcerated if you do not file... No law, no statute, just a threat.(and no signature) And that threat was you COULD be.... That should provide a very large hint to the nature of what is going on. The IRS is running on fear.

I'm suggesting again, that if there was a statute that directs citizens to file a 1040. it would practically jump out at you when you put "US Citizen income tax liability" in the search. A lot of things do come up, but not a direct mandate for which most people act on every year. (That is, if they are citizens, and that is the key difference) If you(the generic you) don't count yourself as a citizen with rights and priviledges guaranteed by the constitution, and you think of yourself as any person or individual listed in the code, you will do what ever...

But, for the sake of argument, let's jump ahead to where we have read and realized there is no directive that makes you, the citizen liable to file a 1040. Imagine trying to convince a jury of your peers who are just as dazzled by bullshit, and/or just as emotionally manipulated, as some of the members on this forum. Or, finding yourself in front of a judge in "Tax Court" with NO jury, who has the mentality of Daniel Evans.

-- KoFE (Your@town.USSA), September 06, 2001.


Jack -- if you are curious, the statute that requires you file a return is 26 U.S.C. 6012. Basically, it requires that you file if your gross income exceeds the exemption amounts. Section 61 defines what gross income is, which is basically everything, including wages, etc.

Didn't we have a thread a few months ago on the Bushaber decision and all this nonsense about direct taxes, etc? I've sort of given up on KoFE for that reason. He really is a "snip kiddy"; he just cuts and pastes these arguments from tax protest web sites without really understanding them. I mean, where does he get this stuff on "directives." If a treasury "directive" is what he needs, what's wrong with the phrase ""Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States" which is found in Treasury Regulation § 1.1-1(a)(1)?

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), September 06, 2001.


E.H.,

Thanks for your input. I was beginning to wonder if you or Flint were going to jump back in and help me out here. I probably should learn the lesson that you guys already have. I doubt that much of anything, anyone produces will break KoFE's obsession (delusion).

After finding a site that allows you to search Title 26 I had just discovered Section 6102, read through it and the cross references and was about to post the reference to this section for KoFE when I saw your post. I admit that it takes some time to read and comprehend these sections but it appears that 6102 directly addresses his requirement for a law that requires individuals to file a tax return.

At this point let me state that I personally feeel that some of this type of debate over the tax law would be ended if the law was written in a manner that you could read the Goddamn thing without a) falling asleep b)getting a headache or c)losing your place following all the cross referenced sections. A clear case of where simplicity would be a vast improvement for those of us not admitted to the bar.

I totally missed his request for a Treasury directive. I'm glad you picked that up. Okay KoFE, the ball is in your court. These references appear to answer your request for a law that requires you to file a tax return and imposes a tax on income earned by US citizens. Does this satisfy you?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 06, 2001.


So if I'm reading this next argument correctly, it boils down to the following.

In KoFE's world, Title 26 says:

1) You are standing on the tracks

2) There is a train coming

3) If you don't get off the tracks, you could be killed.

Now, according to KoFE's interpretation, nothing in the above actually *directs* you to get off the tracks, and therefore if you do so, you are falling for some sort of fear tactics. There is no *explicit requirement* to get off the tracks.

Nor does KoFE deny that he's on the tracks, or that there is a train coming, or that being struck by the train can be Very Serious. His entire argument is that the phrase "you have a tax liability" is not a directive, only a description. Similarly, the phrase "you face serious legal consequences if you fail to meet your liability" is only an observation and not a directive either. And descriptions dont "really" require us to do anything. KoFE claims Title 26 never actually says "get off the damn tracks, stupid!" in the right section, using the right words or tone of voice, in his approved context, according to those whose nonsense he's parroting. Therefore, we don't need to actually do anything.

Uh, right.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 06, 2001.


"Trouble ahead, trouble behind, Casey Jones you better watch your speed!"

Good analogy

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 06, 2001.


Yes Jack, I saw your name on that statute, lol.

It seems to really boil down to how you view yourself. Whether or not you are a citizen who deserves the rights and priviledges spelled out by the constitution, (such as "no direct taxation") and the protection of those rights by publc servants, or are you an individual who does whatever they are told, even when the constitution forbids it.

My analogy was that certain assholes insist that we all lay on the tracks, and when the you try to get off, they pull you back on. You're the one pulling us back on, Flint.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 06, 2001.


Flint's analogy is good. Here's another good one that specifically describes KoFE's error.

Suppose I look at the traffic code for my state. I turn to the page that says that, "anyone driving a motor vehicle with more than 2 axles and/or exceeding a gross weight of 10,000 lbs, upon conviction for driving in excess of 10 MPH over the duly posted limit, may be subject to a penalty not to exceed (a) a monetary forfeiture of $500 and/or (b) loss of license for 12 months and/or (c) imprisonment for 12 months."

I'm making that up, but you get the point. Does anyone here seriously think that you could get away with speeding solely by nitpicking this?

(But for a humorous example, see this at the 'Lectric Laypersons Law Library site.[g])

But play KoFE for a minute. Imagine the field day that we could have with this phrase, using KoFE's approach!

1. Note that it doesn't say that I *WILL* be fined; it merely says that I MAY be subject to a fine NOT TO EXCEED certain limits!

(What a KoFE-type doesn't realize is that a law like this is worded to restrict the JUDGE who imposes the sentence; the JUDGE has discretion UP TO these limits. He cannot, for example, impose a $1,000,000 fine or life imprisonment for speeding. But on the other hand, if you present a compelling argument, the judge can decide to give you a lesser fine, or no fine at all. It's up to him/her.)

(This is even true in tax cases. If you actually go to court with a tax protestor argument, the judge might be feeling charitable that day; instead of fining you for wasting the court's time, he/she might let you off with a stern warning. The first time. Maybe. If you're very lucky.)

2. I could nitpick definitions for weeks. What is a "duly posted speed limit?"

(What KoFE has NEVER been able to grasp is that these things are usually defined *ELSEWHERE* in the code and/or are left to the discretion of the courts ... which generally rely on precedent.)

(In other words, "duly posted speed limit" ultimately means WHAT THE COURTS FINALLY DECIDE THAT IT SHOULD MEAN.)

3. Wait a minute! Here's the biggest loophole of all! I don't drive a vehicle with more than 2 axles or that have a gross weight over 10,000 lbs! Therefore I can speed to my heart's content!

(What a KoFE-type would miss is that there is ANOTHER law elsewhere in the code that prescribes different penalty limits for people like me in passenger cars.)

(Ah, I'm already getting bored again. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.)

(Just as there are thousands of policemen who will give you a ticket for speeding, in spite of whatever creative argument you might contrive to the contrary, there are IRS agents who WILL hammer you and take you to court if you refuse to pay your taxes.)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 06, 2001.


Ah, darnit. I forgot to fill in the link to that article. Let's try again:

http://www.lectlaw.com/f iles/shl04.htm

It really IS funny. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 06, 2001.


You made my argument for me again, dumbfuck. No direct taxes without apportionment means exactly that. It couldn't be any more clear.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 06, 2001.

I have to admit, I just LOVE KoFE's phrase "priviledges spelled out". There's GOT to be some poetic justice embedded there somehow, I can just feel it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 06, 2001.

Porter, it's been kind of fun to see Flint stifled until you got back. Now he's feeling a bit more confident, but he's too lazy to actually search that reference you gave above to no that it's bogus. lol. Carry on, Flint. lol Come on porter, when are you gonna provide the lawful, mandatory direct, statute, not the innuendo. Still waiting.....

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 06, 2001.

BTW, I'm talking about Treasury Reg. 1.1-1(a)(1)

What's the deal, Porter?

-- KoFE (Your@town.USSA), September 06, 2001.


Come on, fellas; you've got man here who graduated from law school who can't show you a statute that directs you to file a 1040. Refuses to address the report by Zaritsky, the Legislative Attorney, and insist that the direct tax issue is nonsense.

"A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty by reason it has not so direct a relationship to the person"- Thomas Jefferson

Seems Jefferson understood the issue, why can't Porter the lawyer?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 06, 2001.


I see we're working our way back around to KoFE's contention that amendments don't actually amend anything unless they contain the magic word "repeal", despite all courts and dictionaries to the contrary. So once again, KoFE is reciting language in the body of the Constitution which was replaced by the 16th Amendment, just as though the 16th Amendment never happened. Weird.

I guess it's beyond KoFE's grasp that even the plainest and most obvious language can be rendered obsolete and replaced by new laws that override the old ones. We do this all the time, especially with tax laws (which change every year).

But KoFE is quite correct, I see no sense in digging through huge volumes of legalistic cross references knowing in advance that for KoFE, words do not say what they say if he doesn't like the message. So amendments don't amend, and we are not liable for our liabilities, and direct requirements are not directives, ad nauseum. Like Stephen, I grow bored with such childishness.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 06, 2001.


Jesus Christ KoFE, someone answers your post directly and you totally ignore it and dredge up some other issue to try and obscure the fact that you are wrong!

You said:

I'm suggesting again, that if there was a statute that directs citizens to file a 1040. it would practically jump out at you when you put "US Citizen income tax liability" in the search.

Both Porter and I referred you to section 6012 of the US Code which says:

Sec. 6012. Persons required to make returns of income -STATUTE- (a) General rule Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual - (i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, (ii) who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, (iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, or (iv) who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to a joint return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home.

I believe that this says you have to file a return. True the statute does not call it a 1040 form as this is left to the Director of the Internal Revenue Service to prescribe forms as stated in section 6102 as follows:

Sec. 6102. Computations on returns or other documents -STATUTE- (a) Amounts shown on internal revenue forms The Secretary is authorized to provide with respect to any amount required to be shown on a form prescribed for any internal revenue return, statement, or other document,

This I believe answers your complaint cited above but you totally ignore these facts and then go on to rant about indirect taxtes being prohibited in the Constitution. I got news for you, the Constitution can be amended and was. I will not give you references for the fact the Constitution can be amended as I believe that even you are aware of that. I also know you have gone through the whole 16th amendment thing and that you don't believe in it. That is your problem, if you said you didn't believe in the laws of gravity I would still believe that you would fall if you jumped off a cliff. Again I got news for you, you would fall towards death or serious injury even if you said all the way down "I don't believe this."

Then you drag Thomas Jefferson into the matter with an obscure quote that I am sure is one of his most famous efforts as it pertains to slavery, something he was in favor of. So what? I mean I know it is THE Thomas Jefferson and all but who cares about this quote. This is his opinion, not a matter of law, not a statute, none of these things. It is simply the man's opinion. People differ in their opinions. It happened quite a lot in the early, formative years of this great country and Jefferson lost some of those debates back then. Even if he was right at the time it would have very little relevance to the facts and statutes of this country 200 odd years later.

You claim Flint to be "stifled". Poppycock. The man is simply tired of your semantic games, your refusal to even consistently respond when someone counters your own post and your irrational fixation on an assertion that is simply a fantasy. You seem to enjoy playing these types of games but again I got news for you….. it makes you look like a stubborn, intellectually dishonest fool.

Sorry folks but this exercise is meaningless.



-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 06, 2001.


One more thing. You never did answer me. Do you actually read any of the posts that peopel direct towards you or any of the laws that you say don't exist?

Better yet. Do you file an income tax return? Or are you one of the "individual[s} who does whatever they are told, even when the constitution forbids it."?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 06, 2001.


KoFE -- I don't know why I bother, since you never read this stuff anyway, but here goes.

You ask "what's the deal" regarding Treasury Reg. 1.1-1(a)(1), and refer to it as bogus. This basically means that you don't know squat about tax law. If for some strange reason you actually want to read it, the Treasury Regulations dealing with taxation are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations -- specifically Title 26 (the CFR This particular reg is part of Chapter I, Part I of CFR Title 26, entitled "income tax on individuals."

If you need a cite, the CCH website has a free service for tax regulations; see:

http://tax.cch.com/freecoderegs/FinalTemporaryRegulations/INCOMETAX/No rmalTaxandSurtax/DETERMINATIONOFTAXLIABILITY/TaxonIndividuals/05FB0019 AE.asp

That said -- answer me a question. You apparently love that 1916 Bushaber decision, apparently because it contains what you call a treasury "directive" dealing with non-residents. Why don't you have a similar fondness for the actual, current "treasury directives"?

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), September 07, 2001.


Jack, you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of.

I actually thought we were nearing an understanding that at last the code needed to be looked at more closely, and that nowhere does it give a direct order for a CITIZEN to file a 1040.

Yes, it absolutely directs individuals and persons with gross income above-etc., etc.

But the individuals are not defined as the CITIZENS of the US unless thy have foreign earned income.

Why don't you ask Porter about the bogus statute he just referenced? Why don't you ask him why he can't address Zaritskys report which, BTW is in the congressional record?

Why are all of these discrepancies overlooked by everyone here except me? How is it, that you can skirt around and deny these issues and call me delusional.

If you want to stick with one issue at a time, let me know. that's been my intention all along.

You posted Evans, who says "direct tax" is a little unclear. I say it's not unclear. It's still a valid article of our constitution, or it wouldn't be there. If you want to believe Flints fantasy, it's your choice.

That was Jeffersons (one of several) opinion on taxation, not slavery. He was against direct taxation. THAT'S WHY THE CLAUSE IS IN THERE.

The code is written, honoring that clause, THAT'S WHY IT DOESN'T SAY CITIZENS ARE LIABLE UNLESS THEY HAVE FOREIGN EARNED INCOME.

6012 says nothing about citizens because it honors that clause.

You are just having a hard time believing that Porter could be mistaken about the law. But look at the dodging and weaving he does. The answers he gives are wrong, and the rest he ignores; then throws a couple insults, and leaves. He uses the same MO, repeatedly. I'm amazed that you let that slide by.

I say he's wrong about the Brushaber decision, and I offer Zaritskys report, and TD2313 to show why. Either these two are bogus, or I'm right about their relevance. If you, or anybody else don't want to verify or disprove them, I can't control that.

They say, in effect, that the 16th didn't confer any new powers of taxation which didn't exist before. Read Zaritsky several times, slowly. Then read the Pollock case.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 07, 2001.


Actually, KoFE, citizens are defined (partially by cross reference)in Treasury Reg. 1.1-1(b) and (c)as follows:

(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 933 with respect to Puerto Rican source income, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.

(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401- 1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1.

You really ought to read some of this stuff, KoFE. If you're gonna be a tax nut, you ought to be "the best that you can be."

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), September 07, 2001.


Hell, KoFE -- as long as I'm on a roll . . . looking back on our prior discussion on Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) . . . didn't it say the following:

"Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations,' (158 U.S. 637), its validity was recognized; indeed it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635."

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), September 07, 2001.


KoFE,

The last post by Porter underscores my point. He gave you the same reference and even gave you the address to help get you to the place so you can check it out and obviously you don't do it. Finally he is so kind as to actually post the relevant passages. Please read the above item and respond directly to what it says. Does it or does it not contradict what you claim.

I also take exception to your statement that nowhere in Title 26 does it say citizens are liable for taxes, only individuals.

Number 1) I don't believe that you have read any of Title 26 let alone all of it so your blanket claim holds no water.

Number 2) Aren't Citizens individuals? This is more of your semantic bullshit.

Yes I do realize that Jefferson was expressing his OPINION on taxation. I through in the comment about slavery because he had an OPINION about slavery too (pro in case you weren't aware of it) just because THE Thomas Jefferson thought slavery was a good idea should all of the Citizens of the United States be bound by that opinion.

I am really sorry that you disagree with the 16th amendment but that is the way a representative democracy such as ours changes the rules as the times change. It is actually a very neat mechanism that gives flexibilty to a country such as ours to meet the changes that time brings. You don't have to like it but you really should face the facts here and deal with the reaity, tha's just the way it is.

Finally, you still ignore my posts that ask you direct questions. Do you read any of this stuff? never mind we've already settled that. Do you file a tax return like the rest of us ignorant sheeple.

P.S.

I don't know porter and am not even sure if he is a lawyer or not. That would be beside the point. The true point is he makes a much better arguement than you and actually backs it up, which unfortunatley you choose to ignore.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 07, 2001.


Jack, He (Porter) actually did provide a reference THIS time. I haven't checked it out at this time. I most definately will.

The ref. he made earlier takes you to ten catagories of trust funds etc. Your assertion that I'm not searching and reading the code is incorrect. Check it out your self.

Anyone can do a search with the CORRECT info. If he provided it, I'll find it.

I can't figure out your refusal to differentiate between citizen and individual. Not all indviduals are citizens. There is no semantical game there. Again, if you count yourself as an individual first, and a citizen second class, you can answer, and be liable for every statute in the code. What is so hard to figure out?

I'm sure Porter would agree, laws are limited and narrowly defined. If the opposite were true, we would be in deep shit.

Meanwhile, Flint and Poole add nothing of value to the discussion. They're starting to remind me of a couple chihuahuas.

Porter, Zaritsky is explaining Brushaber. I understand the skepticism of MY claim. But here we have a Congressional lawyer telling you what it means. If the report is authentic, then you're just plain wrong.

Thanks for providing the latest refs. I will definately check them out. But pardon MY skepticism, on account of your previous refs didn't quite make the grade.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 07, 2001.


RE-reading you last post, Jack. You are assuming again, that the 16th means something that it (may) (does) not. That is what Zaritskys report is about. We have been arguing this for months; now I've offered substantial evidence, but it's being ignored.

I listed everything needed to check it out. The file number etc. Porter should have no trouble fidig it.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 07, 2001.


Well, I went to the Tax site Porter referenced, (after attempting to use the link he provided) the link doesn't work, and the site is un searchable; maybe you need a secret password to bypass the online store,lol. Is this what you mean JBT?- that Porter provided evidence to back up his claim? You obviously didn't check it out yourself; and yet you endorsed his opinion without looking. What's up with that?

Anyone can easily access the US tax code. Put those words in a search, and the entire, searchable code comes up. Your recently referenced statute doesn't, Porter.

Porter, I'm beginning to think you are a lying weasel, mentally deranged, or stupid; I just can't make up my mind. JBT, you are following a sick puppy.

JBT, he says I don't know squat about the tax code, but he can't provide the ref where you can see that statute listed in the code! It's not rocket science: I gave you the Subtitle B sec 2001 and you found it without any problem; why doesn't his ref show up?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 07, 2001.


And one last thing, Porter, because I'm getting tired of scrolling down this thread; You again present a portion of Brushaber that shows there is a legitimate tax on incomes from trades, etc.

That is entirely true, and you entirely miss the point that no where does it say tax on incomes of citizens. I've tried from the beginning to help you undertand that. Indirect taxes on incomes are valid. Who is taxed indrectly? Everyone except citizens, because direct taxes on citizens are forbidden.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 07, 2001.


Kofe pays taxes.

End of thread.

-- sumer (I@aint.sayin), September 07, 2001.


I love you KoFE -- really (at least when I can stop laughing). You're better than www.theonion.com!

After all this pontificating about tax law, are you really saying that you've never heard of the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, that you can't find it, and that therefore you don't believe in it? Geez, guy -- that's the legal equivalent of not being able to pour piss out of a boot when the instructions are written on the heel! You really don't have the faintest clue as to how the law works, do you? Even non-lawyers with business backgrounds are familiar with the CFR. Anyone who has any contact with or knowledge of the Federal Government knows the CFR.

My guess is that you're young, have limited formal education and are not that bright. What do you say?

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), September 07, 2001.


I say anybody able to print the words US Tax Code, can put them in a search engine, and pull up Title 26; from there a query of Citizens Income Tax liability or a variation of same,(of which I have done several ways) should produce the same statute. Truth be told, it doesn't, and I can only speculate why.

For now, I'll say it exist at that site. If it's in Title 26, Subtitle A, income taxes, it should be easy to find, as well.

Strange how a clear, concise directive like Subtitle B sec 2001 appears readily each time, while this one doesn't, and nobody else quotes this statute to show liability. I wouldn't congratulate yourself yet.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 07, 2001.


Oh, KoFE, you cute but incompetent tax lawyer you -- apparently, you don't know the difference between the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations. Try and figure this out. It's pretty basic.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), September 07, 2001.

Okay Porter, since you want to play guess what I'm thiking, it will just have to take a little longer to verify, and put into context. I'm not in a hurry...

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 08, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ