UPS Not a "Trade or Business"?

[Arthur Rubin]

(Replying to a post not yet accepted; the reply makes reasonable sense even without the post, and I'm not sure the post doesn't violate board guidelines):

Your (Harvester's) ban is for promoting a view of taxation which is refuted by everyone, including most Tax Protesters(TM), and providing the same discredited arguments multiple times in the same thread.

[LPC]

Your (Harvester's) ban is for promoting a view of taxation which is refuted by everyone, including most Tax Protesters(TM), and providing the same discredited arguments multiple times in the same thread.

Harvester has not been banned, and he's not on moderated status for promoting a view of taxation, but for off-topic posts that frequently included links to scams he was helping promote.

I've approved both of his last two posts to this thread because they were reasonably on-topic and not abusive. The fact that they were also glaringly and pathetically oblivious to logic and reality did not deter me, because I think he should be free to continue to demonstrate the idiocy of his views.

[Pottapaug1938]

Your (Harvester's) ban is for promoting a view of taxation which is refuted by everyone, including most Tax Protesters(TM), and providing the same discredited arguments multiple times in the same thread.

Harvester has not been banned, and he's not on moderated status for promoting a view of taxation, but for off-topic posts that frequently included links to scams he was helping promote.

I've approved both of his last two posts to this thread because they were reasonably on-topic and not abusive. The fact that they were also glaringly and pathetically oblivious to logic and reality did not deter me, because I think he should be free to continue to demonstrate the idiocy of his views.

The problem I have with him is that he "plays the same tired record over and over again". He expects us to spend copious amounts of our time proving the truth of our assertions about, among other things, income taxation (to paraphrase the famous tax case quote, we are expected to buttress our assertions with copious citations in pretending that Harvester's claims have any colorable merit); but when he is challenged to prove HIS assertions, he ducks, dodges, weaves and evades, and gives us nothing but self-indulgent back-pattings about having left the "tax plantation", or idiocies along the lines of "STAND TALL, WARRIORS". I, for one, would rather not read any more of his idiocies until and unless he actually has something worthwhile -- and DIFFERENT -- to say.

[LPC]

LPC, we know all about your faulty "includes" logic. Your deception is working on fewer & fewer people - just a handful of Quatlosers at this point.

What "deception"? It's not a "deception" if everything I say is true, and everything I have said about the meaning of "includes" is demonstrably true. I am supported by dictionary definitions, section 7701(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, and numerous court opinions, including the one quoted at the beginning of this thread.

All you have to support you is wishful thinking, because there is no court decision or other authority and no logic for what you say.

And the "fewer and fewer people" you think agree with me include 100% of all federal judges, 100% of the members of Congress and their staff members, and 99.999% of all lawyers. The few people who agree with you are irrational misfits.

Remember, I make plenty of money, lawfully pay no income tax, and do not endorse private credit of the Federal Reserve.

And wserra's great-aunt Tillie grows prize-winning tomatoes in her garden in the Sea of Tranquility.

[LOBO]

How dumb do you think we are?

It takes at least 20 of you to screw in a lightbulb.
We can drown you by placing a sniff-and-scratch at the bottom of your bathtub.
What does a Losthead get on his IQ test? Drool.
You don't make BBQ beans because they keep falling through the grill.

Your deception just isn't working anymore. "Gross blurv is all blurv from whatever source." Now what is blurv? Can't say, I didn't define it.

And finally, your whole argument comes down to "duh, I don't know what income means."

[Cathulhu]

I think you just boiled down all the denier theories: "I'm ignorant, too stupid to understand the word 'includes', but I know I'm right. I knew I was right when I began looking for something to support my conclusion."

[The Operative]

I think you just boiled down all the denier theories: "I'm ignorant, too stupid to understand the word 'includes', but I know I'm right. I knew I was right when I began looking for something to support my conclusion."

It applies to most other conspiracy theories as well.

[silversopp]

Harvey, let's play a little game shall we?

Go to this product:
http://www.amazon.com/Lighted-Magnifier ... B0001UMQ5Q

Now pretend for a moment that you purchase this item. What do you expect to find when you open the box?

[Brandybuck]

That's correct. United Parcel Service is not a statutory "Trade or Business." The statutory definition can be found here:
"(26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office."

What part of "includes" do you not understand? Maybe Santa will bring you an English Dictionary this Christmas. Hopefully it will "include" an instruction manual.

[Brandybuck]

It's like listening to the same bad 70s disco record over and over again -- you may at first enjoy it because "it's so bad, it's good"; but eventually that wears away and you only get annoyed.

Harve is the Disco Duck of tax deniers.

[JamesVincent]

I like the fact that they cannot understand a simple definition but continue that their quotes from statuates are always from the definitions pages and are always out of context. Like Bork quoting from the Virginia codes for his Wiki article, trying to use specific definitions for those laws as general definitions and tied into the " Law of Persons". WTH.

[LPC]

New case, same plaintiff, same arguments, same result.

Steven Martins v. United States, No. 10-13220 (11th Cir. 3/24/2011), aff'ng No. 1:10-cv-00035-SPM-AK (N.D. Fla.).

STEVEN MARTINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Non-Argument Calendar

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00035-SPM-AK

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida

(March 24, 2011)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Steven Martins appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his tax refund action brought pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 6402(a) & 7422. In his complaint, Martins asserted that he was entitled to a full refund of all federal taxes paid through withholding, as the pay he received from his employment at United Parcel Service ("UPS") in Gainesville, Florida did not qualify as taxable wages within the meaning of certain provisions in the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"). The district court sua sponte dismissed the action as frivolous. Martins asserts on appeal that the district court erred in determining his claim for a tax refund was frivolous, because it did not address his novel arguments concerning the meaning of certain provisions in the IRC. After thorough review, we affirm.

We review a district court's sua sponte dismissal of a claim de novo. See American United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1057, 1070 (11th Cir. 2007). However, a determination of frivolity is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1179 (11th Cir. 2005).

We have long held as frivolous claims that income "derived from employment in the private sector[] is not subject to federal taxation." United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1132-33 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (rejecting argument that "only public servants are subject to tax liability").

Here, the district court correctly determined that Martins' claims were frivolous. Martins does not dispute that he received money from UPS in exchange for his services as a driver during the tax years in question, nor does he dispute the government's calculation regarding the amount of money he received. He argues only that the money that he received for his services is non-taxable, based on a narrow reading of the statutory language in the IRC and because he worked for a private sector corporation. These arguments are frivolous. See Morse, 532 F.3d at 1132-33; see also Motes, 785 F.2d at 928. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's summary dismissal of Martins' action for a tax refund.

AFFIRMED.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Come on warriors - stand taller!

[Dr. Caligari]

A ban for possessing a view of taxation different than the Quatlosers; seems a bit harsh

And yet I was banned from Lost Horizons back in the day by Mr. Hendrickson himself for having a different view of tax law than he did.