A TP myth I had never heard before

[Quixote]

Losthead oldhawaiiscot has manufactured a memory of Ronald Reagan as a tax denier.

Well let's see; Start with Otto Skinner, then check with Barry Smith, Vernice Kuglin, Tom Cryer, Bob Hurt, Phil Hart, Joe Bannister, Lindsey Springer, Dave Miner, Devvy Kidd, a trio from Tennesse, forget exactly who they were, had the IRS lose a big one.. If I remember right our former president Ronald Reagan, before he ran for governor was only paying taxes on his properties, nothing on Income tax. His political advisors told him that if he wanted to be considered credible and not a tax "scoundrel" he needed to pay Income tax(fair share, feldergarb). So he filed for a couple of years that he didn't pay... Then ran for Governor of California..

There are a bunch more.....

Edited to emphasize OHS's newest delusion.

[Famspear]

Losthead oldhawaiiscot has manufactured a memory of Ronald Reagan as a tax denier.

Well let's see; Start with Otto Skinner, then check with Barry Smith, Vernice Kuglin, Tom Cryer, Bob Hurt, Phil Hart, Joe Bannister, Lindsey Springer, Dave Miner, Devvy Kidd, a trio from Tennesse, forget exactly who they were, had the IRS lose a big one.. If I remember right our former president Ronald Reagan, before he ran for governor was only paying taxes on his properties, nothing on Income tax. His political advisors told him that if he wanted to be considered credible and not a tax "scoundrel" he needed to pay Income tax(fair share, feldergarb). So he filed for a couple of years that he didn't pay... Then ran for Governor of California..

There are a bunch more.....

Crackhead "oldhawaiiscott" doesn't know his head from a Hawaiian pineapple.

Here is the approach he is suggesting that his fellow scammers take, as he describes it:

So get back to the basic route . The income tax is an excise tax, an indirect tax, not a direct tax. What activitiy [sic] did you partake in that is taxable under the tax laws? None.

User JHV responds with:

Has anyone done that successfully?

.....To which "oldhawaiiscott" responds with his list of Otto Skinner, Barry Smith, Vernice Kuglin, Tom Cryer, Bob Hurt, Phil Hart, Joe Bannister [sic; Banister], Lindsey Springer, Dave Miner, Devvy Kidd, etc., as supposedly being examples of people who "won" (either in or out of court) using his goofy theory. He's wrong. "Oldhawaiiscott" doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Thule]

(Oops, Famspear answered while I was typing. Still, I like the picture, so I'll leave it there )

But wait, there's more. Oldhawaiiscot is actually answering a question. After some ranting about the 'orrible injustice done, the howler monkeys decide that they need to convince their "payer" to "recognize the true working relationship" and stop reporting income.

User "JHV" achieves sentinence and asks if that has ever worked. Skinner, Cryer, Hurt, Hart and the rest of the gang is actually oldhawaiiscots list of success stories.

[Famspear]

Now JHV responds with information about Vernice Kuglin, and "oldhawaiiscot" comes back with this:

Okay, Vernice did not go after the argument on nontaxable activity. Remember the IRS is going to keep going after you, every which way they can... Larry Becraft was her lawyer. Check with him. He is just trying to make as much money as he can. Saw him "defend" an architect here in Hawaii. Becraft did not argue non-taxable activity. So the architect is presently a guest of the federal government..

Those I gave you were just names pulled off the top of my head.

Yeah, scott, you'll pulled 'em out of somewhere, but it may not have been your head......

Research and you can find many more... Check with Devvy Kidd, she can tell you about a woman who owned a factory that fought the IRS, after the victory tax expired.. The woman won...

No, "scot", you can't find "many more" or "any more" or any at all. You don't know what you're talking about.

And we don't need to check with Devvy Kidd, either. The woman who owned the factory was Vivien Kellems. And no, Vivien Kellems did not win. She did not avoid federal income tax or any federal tax under the loony theory you described, "scot".

[fortinbras]

The "direct tax" reference is another TP issue, not quite a myth but a sticking point in the law.

The Constitution originally (1789) provided (Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 4) that "No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census ....."

At some point there was at least a suggestion that the income tax imposed by Congress during the Civil War was a direct tax and, since not apportioned by population, therefore invalid. It was required to adopt the 16th Amendment (in 1913) to enable Congress "to lay and collect taxes on income ... without apportionment ... and without regard to any census....." But the 16th Amendment did not expressly say that the income tax was, itself, a direct tax.

There is, indeed, some uncertainty as to whether an income tax is a "direct tax". One reason for this uncertainty is that there is not complete agreement on what a "direct tax" is or how it is distinguished from an indirect tax.

For example, in one of the earliest Supreme Court decisions, Hylton v. US (1796) 3 US (3 Dall.) 171, 1 L.Ed. 556, a federal tax on the obvious emblements of high income - the number of carriages owned - is upheld as an indirect tax. The case upheld a tax on a family's plantation that had what seems to be an extraordinary number of "chariots", none of them used for hire.

In Springer v. US (1881) 102 US (12 Otto) 586, 26 L.Ed. 253, the Supreme Court opined that there were only two possible "direct" taxes - a poll tax (capitation) and a land tax.

Nowadays, of course, the attitude is that 16th Amendment explicitly said that the income tax could be imposed without the restriction that would (otherwise) apply to a direct tax; so, whether or not the income tax is a direct tax, there is no opportunity for quibbling.

I hope this clarifies things.

[grixit]

I'm barely old enough to remember, but i do remember what happened. Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, said "i think taxes should hurt". Years later, he claimed that what he meant was that he wanted to eliminate payroll deductions so that americans would have to go back to paying one lump sum once a year so they could really feel how much they were paying.

But that was not what he said at the time. Actually at the time it seemed as if what he meant was that everyone should feel that they too were participating in civic life.

Regardless, the press later revealed that "...the governor, a millionaire [this was back when the two didn't always go together], paid no taxes last year". Reagan somewhat lamely referred to "business losses", by which i assume he was doing the usual finagling as everyone else back then. It would have been unremarkable except for his remark, which made him seem like a hypocrite.

The next year, he made sure that everyone knew he had paid and yes, it hurt.

Apparently someone applied that usual tp mythologizing to that story.