Section 93

[Nikki]

Actually you didn't answer the QUESTION.

He want's to know why the IRS won't tell him.

You told him what he wants the IRS to tell him, but they don't have to tell him unless he can tell us where it says they have to tell him what he wants THEM to tell him.

[.]

the proof is in the pudding

Actually, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Weston White]

Whose legal deinition is this? Certainly not the Supreme Court's.

Sure, it is this is out quoted right out of my Black’s Law Dictionary, every passage is full of citations, it even quotes POLLOCK, OMG, somebody save me!

Sigh... you're so dumb you can't see the logical fallacy. Saying that all taxes that can be shifted are indirect taxes is not the same thing as saying that all indirect taxes must be shiftable. (Weston: "All Buicks are cars, therefore all cars are Buicks.")

Yes, but you seem to miss the intrinsic point that, generally that possibly should be present, the employer could very choose not to shift the burden to the consumer, to keep their prices down, the employee however can’t. Though regardless, Dr. Adam Smith stated that taxes placed upon the employee should be paid by their employee either directly or though a pay increase slightly higher than the tax itself is. The employee should not have to suffer the burden of the tax themselves.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected shiftability as a necessary element of an indirect tax:
…

From your quote:

“… , and for the purpose of deciding upon its validity a tax should be regarded in its actual, practical results, rather than with reference to those theoretical or abstract ideas whose correctness is the subject of dispute and contradiction among those who are experts in the science of political economy.' Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1901)”

From my quote (Black’s Law Dictionary):

"Indirect taxes are those demanded in the first instance from one person in the expectation and intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of another. “Ordinarily all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes.” – Pollock v. Farmer’s L. & T. Co..”"

Just because something is expectant does not make it so or a requirement. Notice the use of the word “ordinarily” from POLLOCK, in other words the rule is usually to be applied but not in all cases or matter. You are trying to form a mountain out of a molehill to support your contention. The shifting is not a requirement, there are certain instances when it would be inconvenient or would not work out adequately. Though the point is relevant and withstanding. Equate it to a mantra or a principle.

Your definitions of excises are likewise unsupported by any judicial authority. Excises are not limited to taxes on merchandise, products, or commodities; they also apply to gifts, to the passage pr property at death, and to the receipt of income.

Once again, all of that is right out of my Black’s Law Dictionary and everything within it pertains to jurisprudence. Go figure, huh!

Here is some more POLLOCK in your face jams:

“But Albert Gallatin, in his "Sketch of the Finances of the United States," published in November, 1796, said:

"The most generally received opinion, however, is that, by direct taxes in the Constitution, those are meant which are raised on the capital or revenue of the people; by indirect, such as are raised on their expense. As that opinion is, in itself, rational and conformable to the decision which has taken place on the subject of the carriage tax, and as it appears important, for the sake of preventing future controversies, which may be not more fatal to the revenue than to the tranquility of the Union, that a fixed interpretation should be generally adopted, it will not be improper to corroborate it by quoting the author from whom the idea seems to have been borrowed."

He then quotes from Smith's Wealth of Nations, and continues:

"The remarkable coincidence of the clause of the Constitution with this passage in using the word 'capitation' as a generic expression, including the different species of direct taxes, an acceptation of the word peculiar, it is believed, to Dr. Smith, leaves little doubt that the framers of the one had the other in view at the time, and that they, as well as he, by direct taxes, meant those paid directly from, and falling immediately on, the revenue, and, by indirect, those which are paid indirectly out of the revenue by falling immediately upon the expense."”

[Weston White]

Weston,

The only thing you have done in this thread is to yet again display your inability to read. I suggest you forgo studying any statutes for the time being and spend the next month or two learning what the word, "or" means and how it is used in a sentence.

Also, you still have not answered my questions...

Weston, I am going to keep this utterly simple.

Do you believe that a tax on wages, salary, compensation or whatever word you wish to choose, for labor is a capitation?

Do you believe that compensation for labor, paid in the form of wages or salary, are not subject to the income tax laws?

Note: This time, I am asking for what you believe. I am not asking for an explanation. A simple yes or no answer will suffice or if you cannot answer with a yes or no, the simplest answer possible. Earlier, and in another thread, I asked if you thought the courts would agree with a similar statement. You have not answered that question yet either.

Yes I already answered, this is how you respond? However, since you are so determined to use legalize that is specifically defined and relevent to tax law in regards to 26 USC, my answer to you is:

NO!

[Nikki]

Weston:

Please post one single citation which validates Black's as a source of LAW.

Until you can find one, it remains merely a reference manual. Anything it says fails in precedence when compared to the lowest level court of record in this country.

[ASITStands]

Weston:

Please post one single citation which validates Black's as a source of LAW.

Until you can find one, it remains merely a reference manual. Anything it says fails in precedence when compared to the lowest level court of record in this country.

And, until a source is posted validating Black's Law Dictionary, we are free to ignore it.

[Famspear]

I see Weston White is still stuck on his Pollock fakery.

Weston's new name:

Weston ("any words in an argument I like that I find quoted in a court opinion I will try to pass off as a ruling by the court even though the court rejected that very argument and maybe nobody will notice I'm a liar") White.

[The Operative]

Weston,

The only thing you have done in this thread is to yet again display your inability to read. I suggest you forgo studying any statutes for the time being and spend the next month or two learning what the word, "or" means and how it is used in a sentence.

Also, you still have not answered my questions...

Weston, I am going to keep this utterly simple.

Do you believe that a tax on wages, salary, compensation or whatever word you wish to choose, for labor is a capitation?

Do you believe that compensation for labor, paid in the form of wages or salary, are not subject to the income tax laws?

Note: This time, I am asking for what you believe. I am not asking for an explanation. A simple yes or no answer will suffice or if you cannot answer with a yes or no, the simplest answer possible. Earlier, and in another thread, I asked if you thought the courts would agree with a similar statement. You have not answered that question yet either.

Yes I already answered, this is how you respond? However, since you are so determined legalize that is specifically defined and relevent to tax law in regards to 26 USC, my answer to you is:

NO!

First, you did not answer the question when I posted it. The first time I posted these question is at viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4011&p=62055#p62055 Second, the similar question that I refer to is first found at viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4021&p=61980#p61980 You responded to that post, but YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED.

Now, by your 'NO' answer, you are saying that a tax on wages for labor is NOT a capitation. Is that what you are saying? If it is, that is in direct contradiction to what you said earlier,

when it[sic] reality the type of money transferred from the payer to the payee is only taxable by law under an established "capitation tax"

You are also saying that compensation for labor, paid in the form of wages, are subject to the income tax laws. Is that what you are saying?

[Weston White]

Weston:

Please post one single citation which validates Black's as a source of LAW.

Until you can find one, it remains merely a reference manual. Anything it says fails in precedence when compared to the lowest level court of record in this country.

How about all of the many cases that it cites under every definition, is that good enough for you princess?

[Weston White]

No, that is incorrect. There is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE SECRETARY DO A SECTION 6020 RETURN in order to determine an income tax deficiency. (People have tried to argue that point in court, and the courts have ruled, every single time, that the IRS is not required to do a section 6020 return.)

Laff, So what are no saying that “shall” means only if they want to? What is that some double standard that applies only to the Secretary?

“the Secretary shall make such return”
Yes, forget about that, Weston. That's not germane to the points we're discussing.
Oh yes it is because that means paragraph (a) does not apply unless it has to do with stamp taxes.

So that means the Secretary can’t do the following:

“(a) Authority of Secretary
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, …”

Except for to assess that which has been provided by the taxpayer, unless there is an exception to be made under 26 USC 6020, period.

No. That is a legally frivolous argument.

Really, under which numeration within the 6702(c) list? I don’t recall ever reading that one.

That is not from the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). That is from the Internal Revenue Manual. And nothing in the material you quoted changes anything I have written.

My error, I wrote CFR by mistake, should have been IRM, though it is in support from the 26 CFR at any rate: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/ ... 6020-1.htm and it does change what you wrote because it established the only forms that can bee assessed by the Secretary and by which personnel.

Wrong. Section 6011 applies to the entire Internal Revenue Code.

No paragraph (b) limits this section to only Chapters 21 and 24, that means all other chapters are ruled out. Do you not wonder why the have a 6011 and a 6012, they are both virtually identical statutes; 6011 Subtitle C, 6012 Subtitle A, any questions?

Gibberish, Weston. I have already cited the Treasury reg that prescribes Form 1040. And I have already pointed out that most forms are not specified in the regs anyway.

The Regulations have to be in accordance with the statutes, there is no statute which implements any such 1040 form within 6012, such as there is for the W-2 and the W-4 within their own sections. That Regulation has nothing supporting it in statute, there is no PTOA part for 6012 either.

[Nikki]

You have it backwards, SFB.

A bubble gum wrapper could cite a Supreme Court case, but that doesn't make the wrapper a valid legal source.

Just because Black's cites innumerable cases, it isn't a valid legal source.

A law or a court decision is a valid legal source. Black's is neither of these.

Black's is not black. It is a Norwegian Blue, pining for the fjords.

[Weston White]

First, you did not answer the question when I posted it. The first time I posted these question is at viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4011&p=62055#p62055 Second, the similar question that I refer to is first found at viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4021&p=61980#p61980 You responded to that post, but YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED.

I did answer you to the best of my ability, given the artfulness of your post, you did not respond until now, or if you did I missed your response.

Now, by your 'NO' answer, you are saying that a tax on wages for labor is NOT a capitation. Is that what you are saying? If it is, that is in direct contradiction to what you said earlier,

No, for the sole fact that “wages” and "services" are specific legal terms that have been especially defined within 26 USC.

You are also saying that compensation for labor, paid in the form of wages, are subject to the income tax laws. Is that what you are saying?

I am not “also saying” anything, you are the one that insists upon using legal definitions; you are not being sincere in your questions.

However, what you stated above is incorrect, it is not 'compensation for labor' it is 'compensation for services' that is taxable in the form of "wage". BIG DIFFERENCE.

[Weston White]

You have it backwards, SFB.

A bubble gum wrapper could cite a Supreme Court case, but that doesn't make the wrapper a valid legal source.

Just because Black's cites innumerable cases, it isn't a valid legal source.

A law or a court decision is a valid legal source. Black's is neither of these.

Black's is not black. It is a Norwegian Blue, pining for the fjords.

Yea as if Black's Law Dictionary is lying about everything... Geez, are you're not one of those evil conspiracy theorists are you?

The cases cited serve to substantiate the definitions included therein. Are you are crack-rocks?

Oh let me guess case citations only have evidentiary value when posted by somebody at Quatloos that has their own special title designation, right? Talk about living in your own little slice of reality pie. ROFL

[Weston White]

Weston:

Please post one single citation which validates Black's as a source of LAW.

Until you can find one, it remains merely a reference manual. Anything it says fails in precedence when compared to the lowest level court of record in this country.

And, until a source is posted validating Black's Law Dictionary, we are free to ignore it.

Great just like you choose to ignore reality each time you have to face yourself in the mirror, having to acknowledge that dirty truth about what it is that you do each and every workday. How do you do it, really?

[Weston White]

I see Weston White is still stuck on his Pollock fakery.

Weston's new name:

Weston ("any words in an argument I like that I find quoted in a court opinion I will try to pass off as a ruling by the court even though the court rejected that very argument and maybe nobody will notice I'm a liar") White.

I am still awaiting for you to post your "claim", this is my fourth request and you have been a total no show, thus far. Unless it was that piece somebody else posted for you. If so I already undoubted destroyed that one, that was a total cake-walk, though it did serve to give me much better insight as to what exactly are 'direct taxes', as I had been unclear on that point, until now that is. So for that I thank you. Gracias Senior!

[Famspear]

Laff, So what are no saying that “shall” means only if they want to? What is that some double standard that applies only to the Secretary?

Read the entire sentence, Weston. "There is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE SECRETARY DO A SECTION 6020 RETURN in order to determine an income tax deficiency." Read the part in italics. The courts have ruled that there is no requirement that the Secretary do a 6020 return in order for the Secretary to assert a deficiency. I don't make the rules. (By the way, that "shall" normally means "must" in a statute. That may be the source of your confusion.)

[ . . . . ] paragraph (a) does not apply unless it has to do with stamp taxes.

No, Weston. Wrong. That's not what it means. Paragraph (a) is applicable regardless of whether the matter involves stamp taxes.

Really, under which numeration within the 6702(c) list? I don’t recall ever reading that one.

You're still not reading, Weston. READ. I said it's a legally frivolous argument. I did not say it was covered by the list under section 6702(c). (It may or may not be.) You are confusing two related but separate concepts: An argument can be legally frivolous and yet not be covered by section 6702(c)'s list. That list wasn't even promulgated until March 15, 2007. The term "frivolous" argument covers a lot more than just the frivolous arguments specified in the list. (Surprise! Surprise!)

No paragraph (b) limits this section to only Chapters 21 and 24, that means all other chapters are ruled out. Do you not wonder why the have a 6011 and a 6012, they are both virtually identical statutes; 6011 Subtitle C, 6012 Subtitle A, any questions?

No, it's subsection (b), not paragraph (b), and subsection (b) does not limit the application of section 6011 to just Chapters 21 and 24.

The Regulations have to be in accordance with the statutes, there is no statute which implements any such 1040 form within 6012 [ . . . . ]

Gibberish, Weston. You don't know what you're talking about. There is no legal requirement that there be a "statute which implements any such 1040 form within 6012." That verbage is gibberish.

Regarding Black's Law Dictionary: Black's is an example of what we call secondary authority. It's OK to quote from Black's if the person doing the quoting knows what he or she is doing. You, Weston, do not know what you are doing.

[Famspear]

I see Weston White is still stuck on his Pollock fakery.

Weston's new name:

Weston ("any words in an argument I like that I find quoted in a court opinion I will try to pass off as a ruling by the court even though the court rejected that very argument and maybe nobody will notice I'm a liar") White.

I am still awaiting for you to post your "claim", this is my fourth request and you have been a total no show, thus far. Unless it was that piece somebody else posted for you. If so I already undoubted destroyed that one, that was a total cake-walk, though it did serve to give me much better insight as to what exactly are 'direct taxes', as I had been unclear on that point, until now that is. So for that I thank you. Gracias Senior!

No, I am letting you bake in your juices a while longer, Weston.

You think you are such an expert on Pollock. You are clueless. Either you are incompetent or you are lying. The Court in Pollock rejected Adam Smith. Let's just leave it at that for a while. I like to watch you sweat.

[Weston White]

Great, while at it ask why they IRS can never seem to produce something as simple as the signed assessment, notice and demand for tax, or the authority to issue a fine. That should be easy enough to accomplish, no? It is not like I am asking them to... "Show me the law!" Now am I?

Please show where they are required; by statute, regulation, or court decision; to do any of the above.

We won't hold our breath until you are able to do so.

Good for you! Though it really does not matter, in the end it is but an insignificant point to be made. However, the fact that you appear to have no familiarity with such sections and Regulations, speaks volumes about you and the quality of services you provide to your "marks".

[Weston White]

No, I am letting you bake in your juices a while longer, Weston.

You think you are such an expert on Pollock. You are clueless. Either you are incompetent or you are lying. The Court in Pollock rejected Adam Smith. Let's just leave it at that for a while. I like to watch you sweat.

Wow, and I though you here as a hobby because you like to “help” people? Great, just one more reason for me to NOT trust whatever it is that you post. Heh.

Sweat? Are you kidding me, these last two days I have gotten a ton of ideas for a new report I want to compile. The only thing I am “sweating” about it trying to retain all of the new information I have recently come to realize.

[Nikki]

Great, while at it ask why they IRS can never seem to produce something as simple as the signed assessment, notice and demand for tax, or the authority to issue a fine. That should be easy enough to accomplish, no? It is not like I am asking them to... "Show me the law!" Now am I?

Please show where they are required; by statute, regulation, or court decision; to do any of the above.

We won't hold our breath until you are able to do so.

Good for you! Though it really does not matter, in the end it is but an insignificant point to be made. However, the fact that you appear to have no familiarity with such sections and Regulations, speaks volumes about you and the quality of services you provide to your "marks".

To which sections and regulations are you referring? Could they be the ones you just pulled out of thin air? You are playing a game and losing badly.

Cite something or admit you just made it all up, loser.