Question 1 discussion

[Dr. Caligari]

Given your authorings so far - I'd say the odds favor you citing a case and specific rulings that do not actually apply to your position.

Especially since he is before a Massachusetts tax agency, and has not cited a single Massachusetts statute or case.

[wserra]

Jamie - you post, receive responses, and then post again as though the responses had never occurred. You repeat constantly - bad enough for someone who makes sense - and are now on your second (or even third) mis-quote and mis-cite of the same cases. You call names as though "dumbass" was a winning legal argument.

You've been warned before. It's only because the warning was for something somewhat different that you aren't moderated at this moment. From now on, though, act like an adult or we moderate the infant.

[Jamie0331]

The first case that I have given the ABT was Jack Cole v. Commissioner Of the DOR. They have never seen that case. They went and pulled the full case and their faces went blank.
I looked at the lawyer and laughed. Now what’s up? He pulled to more full cases and said that he can not defend against them. This lawyer was just sitting. The lawyer was out sick that had my case. I understand that income is profits and gains. It is defined as such and the Supreme Court has made that perfectly clear over and over. There are classes of taxes that can be levied. Direct and indirect. The Supreme Court has made that perfectly clear. I am just delivering the message. I am not writing it. I am not protesting the tax. The Supreme Court is clearly stating their decision and the lower courts are making them moot.

de·rive
dəˈrīv/Submit
verb
past tense: derived; past participle: derived
obtain something from (a specified source).
"they derived great comfort from this assurance"
synonyms: obtain, get, take, gain, acquire, procure, extract, attain, glean
"he derives consolation from his poetry"

prof·it
ˈpräfət/Submit
noun
1.
a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.
"pretax profits"
synonyms: (financial) gain, return(s), yield, proceeds, earnings, winnings, surplus, excess; More

gain
ɡān/Submit
verb
3rd person present: gains
1.
obtain or secure (something desired, favorable, or profitable).
"a process that has gained the confidence of the industry"
synonyms: obtain, get, secure, acquire, come by, procure, attain, achieve, earn, win, garner, capture, clinch, pick up, carry off, reap; More

earn
ərn/Submit
verb
(of a person) obtain (money) in return for labor or services.
"they earn $35 per hour"
synonyms: be paid, take home, gross, net; More

See: Income is taxable not a person.

Do you understand?

[Cpt Banjo]

The Cole case dealt with the validity of a Tennessee tax under the Tennessee Constitution. It has as much relevance to a Massachusetts tax controversy as the instructions on how to assemble something from Ikea.

[Famspear]

The first case that I have given the ABT was Jack Cole v. Commissioner Of the DOR. They have never seen that case. They went and pulled the full case and their faces went blank.

Stop right there. That's a case cited over and over and over and over by tax protesters.

The reason your Massachusetts people have never seen that case is that the case has nothing to do with Massachusetts taxes (or with Federal taxes, either).

The case is Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 206 Tenn, 694, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960). This was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

The quote from the case that the tax protesters sometimes cite is: "Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege." The quotation was a reference to a provision of Article II section 28 of the Tennessee state constitution, Jamie. The Tennessee constitution has nothing to do with Federal tax law or Massachusetts tax law.

This is the problem that we are seeing with you, Jamie -- over and over again. You are simply copying and pasting irrelevant material. You have no concept of how tax law works.

[jcolvin2]

The first case that I have given the ABT was Jack Cole v. Commissioner Of the DOR. They have never seen that case. They went and pulled the full case and their faces went blank.
I looked at the lawyer and laughed. Now what’s up? He pulled to more full cases and said that he can not defend against them. This lawyer was just sitting. The lawyer was out sick that had my case. I understand that income is profits and gains. It is defined as such and the Supreme Court has made that perfectly clear over and over. There are classes of taxes that can be levied. Direct and indirect. The Supreme Court has made that perfectly clear. I am just delivering the message. I am not writing it. I am not protesting the tax. The Supreme Court is clearly stating their decision and the lower courts are making them moot.

You are apparently citing a 1960 Tennessee Supreme Court case deciding the scope of taxation under the Tennessee Constitution (which has since been amended). This is how one federal court in Texas addressed a similarly situated tax protestor who attempted to rely on the Jack Cole case as authority for the position that earnings from labor is not taxable under the Internal Revenue Code:

Kish argues that he does not engage in a taxable activity. He asserts that he “engages in an occupation of common right, which is not taxable in the 50 states.” (Docket Entry No. 58 at 2). To support this argument, Kish cites Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 694, 337 S.W.2d 453, 456 (Tenn.1960), a case in which the Tennessee Supreme Court held that “the right to receive income or earnings ... cannot be taxed as privilege.” When Jack Cole was decided, Tennessee's Constitution prohibited a tax on income. The Tennessee Constitution has since been amended to allow a tax on income. The Jack Cole analysis is not pertinent to this case and does not show that the royalty payments from Research Mannikins are not subject to tax under the Internal Revenue Code.

Kish v Rogers, 2007 WL 3118185 at footnote 2, 100 A.F.T.R.2d 2007-6420, 2007-2 USTC P 50, 766 (S.D. Tex. 2007)

[grixit]

Nothing can possibly force you to change your mind if you don't want to. You can choose to believe gravity does not exist and step off the top of the Eiffel Tower to prove your belief if that's truly what you're inclined to do - to use an extreme example regarding your ability to choose what you believe. Free Will is very powerful in that regard.

Or to reference a real incident, you could be like the early 20th century parachute inventor. He was so sure that his parachute would work, he jumped off the Eiffel Tower without having done any preliminary testing. Spoiler, he became one of the first people whose death was recorded on film in real time.

[Hyrion]

See: Income is taxable not a person.

I totally agree with that. A hypothetical situation:

• You enter an agreement with your neighbor. You'll paint his fence, he'll supply the materials, he'll pay you $300 for your efforts.

You would be taxed on $300 income that came to you in the form of a wage. As you said "Income is taxable". That I'm aware of, no one in North America - Canada or the US, perhaps Mexico is an exception to that - no one is getting taxed on their person.

However - you still haven't clarified what your actual case/position is.

Are you arguing as an individual earning a wage, and you're saying your wage is not income because "since it's a wage the tax is on the person"? If so - Then I do not agree with that conclusion. The wage is most certainly income for the purposes of paying taxes and the tax is not on you the person but on the wage you've earned.

Additionally: If you are arguing from the point of an individual earning a wage - then perhaps instead of pointing to Corporate Tax Laws to support your position, you should review the tax laws that deal with the specifics of individuals earning wages.

[Hyrion]

See: Income is taxable not a person.

Let me be crystal clear: I cherry-picked that one line out of what you posted. I do not agree with anything else you intended to say.

Do you understand?

No... and that's part of the problem. You posted your impression of the after-effects of an experience you had that we did not share. We were not there in the room with you. As a result, we have absolutely no context surrounding your position at all.

If you pointed at a desert dune, then pointed at a camel, then said "see? understand?" we'd think... yea... that's a camel, they travel/live in the desert. Meanwhile you could have meant "there's water in his hump, I've been in the desert, I need a drink".

So... how about trying something new:

1) State what your situation is. For example "I got taxed on receiving $x wage/compensation/income/trade_for_services".
2) Then state what your bottom-line conclusion is. For example "I believe personal income is not taxable and the Laws say that".

Posting snippits from a case, then posting some definitions from a dictionary is completely without context of why you are trying to say what you're trying to say. As a result, of course assumptions are going to be drawn on what you're situation is and what you're trying to say based on the history of people who posted the same snippets without bothering to clarify the context.

From what Famspear and Jcolvin2 have said: I can understand why "they were dumbfounded" (my words). You basically gave them information they never considered before. Understandable as it's information that applies to a completely different state. But make no mistake: after they review it along with the context of what you quoted and then consider all that to your own actual situation - they will respond likely "blowing your argument out of the water". Your euphoria at "having stumped them" will be rather short lived <- My prediction.

[wserra]

The first case that I have given the ABT was Jack Cole v. Commissioner Of the DOR. They have never seen that case. They went and pulled the full case and their faces went blank.

Doubtless struck speechless when they realized that sitting before them was someone so profoundly clueless that he was trying to apply a case based on the Tennessee Constitution to a tax issue in Massachusetts.

Others have pointed this out, so I'll have to be satisfied with providing you with a small lesson in reading. To do that, I'll do what others on this thread - beginning with you, Jamie - haven't: link to the actual case. Please try to follow, this won't take long.

First, the claim: "The complainant claims that under Article II, Section 28, of the Constitution of Tennessee, all property must be taxed according to its value, and taxes must be equal and uniform throughout the State." Then, the court's ruling: "the tax shall be upon the privilege or being in receipt of or realizing net earnings in Tennessee, which, it appears to us, is an income tax not authorized by Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution above referred to."

That's all you need to understand. You don't even need to look up the TN constitutional provision the court cites. It doesn't matter if it requires all TN tax statutes to be carried down the steps of the capital by green aliens before they are effective. The point is that the case ONLY APPLIES TO TENNESSEE.

You have no clue what you're doing.

[BBFlatt]

OMB No. 1545-0074 IS NOT Valid.... Hello! Show me that it is!

Go look it up yourself:

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRASearch

Let us know what you find.

[Jamie0331]

Read this then speak! OK!
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution
Read the income laws smart one!

[Famspear]

Read this then speak! OK!
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution
Read the income laws smart one!

No, grasshopper. We don't need to "read this" and we don't need to "read the income laws", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Calm down.

[Jamie0331]

You’re a fucking idiot! Your link is broken and you go look it up! I already have D-bag! You made the comment! Stupid!

[jcolvin2]

Read this then speak! OK!
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution
Read the income laws smart one!

You mean this part:

Article XLIV.
Full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the general court [the legislative body] to impose and levy a tax on income in the manner hereinafter provided. Such tax may be at different rates upon income derived from different classes of property, but shall be levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same class of property. The general court may tax income not derived from property at a lower rate than income derived from property, and may grant reasonable exemptions and abatements. Any class of property the income from which is taxed under the provisions of this article may be exempted from the imposition and levying of proportional and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes as at present authorized by the constitution. This article shall not be construed to limit the power of the general court to impose and levy reasonable duties and excises.

[Jamie0331]

Income is taxable! Defined as profits and gain!
Framespear is going to banned me because he has a small dick and his wife is not happy! So long!

[morrand]

U.S. v. Balard, 535, 575 F. 2D 400 (1976)

That's United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1976) Sloppy, Jamie, sloppy.
...

Still, since it contains words of more than two syllables, you likely didn't write it. Doubtless some tax protester site.

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. (1935).

United States v. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936). Damn, man, you can't even copy correctly. Vide:

"Every presumption is to be in the oldest indulged in favor of faithful compliance by Congress ...

Damn, son, can't even cut and paste?

I'm going to have to call you out on this one, Wes. You're being very unfair to jamie, I think, impugning his C&P skills. As it turns out, so far as I can tell, he has cut and pasted the material completely accurately.

From his much-vaunted Scribd document.

Which actually is from a Supreme Court case. (See page t, online page 26.)

Jeffrey T. Maehr v. CIR.

Specifically, Maehr's petition for certiorari.

Which was denied.

And is therefore case law as solid as the scribblings on the men's room wall at Schmitzke's Bar.

But, you know, we may as well be accurate about the area of ignorance invoved.

[BBFlatt]

You’re a fucking idiot! Your link is broken and you go look it up! I already have D-bag! You made the comment! Stupid!

So it looks like rather than admit defeat our latest cut and paste fanatic is deliberately trying to get himself banned. Such impressive rhetorical tactics.

[wserra]

Jamie is now moderated.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sad to say, I am from the same state as Jamie0331. Fortunately, having earned a law degree and being married to a retired income tax preparer, it's easy for me to observe that Jamie doesn't know the first thing about our state or federal laws.