Some Asshole wrote: I am talking about assessments and that is all I am going to talk about.
If you were going to talk only about assessments, then you shouldn't have written your very first post in this thread like this:
So if Defendant [sic] did not engage in a taxable activity i.e. selling alcohol, tobacco or firearms, then he/she is/are not liable per the "gibberish code" per the assessment statute at [ . . . ]
You're the one who used the term "taxable activity." Yet, when wserra asked you to find a reference to the term "taxable activity" in the statutes or the regs, you failed. And, the term "taxable activity" is not found in the assessment statutes you cited.
When asked to provide your own definition of the term "taxable activity", you mumbled something about selling alcohol, etc. Yet, nothing in the assessment statutes you cited says anything about that.
You also got the "authority" thingy backwards, by essentially indicating that the assessment statutes "had their authority" from title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. We had to explain to you that regulations get their authority from statutes, not the other way around.
You also threw in a version of the old, frivolous "861 argument" and we went into detail explaining how and why the argument has no valid legal basis.
You hop around like a kid on a pogo stick, from one disjointed thought to another, and none of your thoughts (so far) make much sense. Oh, wait: except that you are finally correctly describing the relationship between the material in title 27 of the CFR and the assessment statutes in the Internal Revenue Code -- at least, the relationship according to the Department of the Treasury, which issued the regs. Thank goodness for small miracles. Apparently, when we heat you up and let you stew long enough, you're able to bubble up with a small teaspoon of coherency. (I'm reminded of the old saying about monkeys with typewriters and the Complete Works of William Shakespeare.)
Dr. Caligari wrote:Then you've lost the argument already, because section 6151 says that, if you have enough gross income (see section 61, which you avoid like a vampire avoids garlic) to require filing a tax return, "the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return."
So, who cares if there's an assessment? You still have to pay.
As Dr. Caligari has noted, assessment under the Internal Revenue Code is
not a pre-requisite for incurring the liability to pay a Federal income tax. So, grasshopper, if you're thinking about going down a path that argues about that point, then prepare to be humiliated even further.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet