Spidey on Taxes

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm not going to spend my valuable time re-proving what most elementary schoolchildren already know, or "reinventing the wheel of civics";

I am trying to find out what you understand. Reading a book won't do that. Also, you have probably spent more time writing your lame posts than it would have taken to answer my questions, so don't go crying to me about how it would take your valuable time to respond.

I understand what any well-educated sixth grader understands. I also understand that you don't.

May I suggest, once again, that you find a good basic book on civics so that you understand that as well. The Boy Scouts have three excellent merit badge pamphlets for the Citizenship in the Community, Nation and World merit badges; and these would give you an excellent beginning. I use them when teaching the badge to Scouts.

As for my "lame" posts -- the pot is calling the kettle black, Bucko. You have yet to say anything of substance in your time on Quatloos.

[Pottapaug1938]

So in federal tax court, when the plaintiff is the United States of America, the United States of America is all federal employees?

No. Only a sovrun idiot would draw that conclusion.

The simple answer is that "the United States of America" has many meanings; and the context in which those words are used is vital. In this case, "the United States of America" means that an agency of the federal government is bringing suit on behalf of all Americans.

[Spideynw]

So in federal tax court, when the plaintiff is the United States of America, the United States of America is all federal employees?

No. Only a sovrun idiot would draw that conclusion.

The simple answer is that "the United States of America" has many meanings; and the context in which those words are used is vital. In this case, "the United States of America" means that an agency of the federal government is bringing suit on behalf of all Americans.

Just to be clear, you are saying in this context, the "United States of America" is everyone that is considered an American citizen?

[Pottapaug1938]

So in federal tax court, when the plaintiff is the United States of America, the United States of America is all federal employees?

No. Only a sovrun idiot would draw that conclusion.

The simple answer is that "the United States of America" has many meanings; and the context in which those words are used is vital. In this case, "the United States of America" means that an agency of the federal government is bringing suit on behalf of all Americans.[/quote]

Just to be clear, you are saying in this context, the "United States of America" is everyone that is considered an American citizen?[/quote]

No. In this instance, "the United States of America" is an agency of the United States government, acting to protect the interests of all Americans.

[iplawyer]

Part of that scheme requires you and me to pay a share. When you don't pay your part - others have to pay more or we all have to do without services. So everyone in the country suffers and is directly injured because you are a nitwit.

That would include the judge and jury?

I am still waiting on your answer.

Yes.

[LOBO]

Just to summarize this thread....

[LPC]

The simple answer is that "the United States of America" has many meanings; and the context in which those words are used is vital. In this case, "the United States of America" means that an agency of the federal government is bringing suit on behalf of all Americans.

Just to be clear, you are saying in this context, the "United States of America" is everyone that is considered an American citizen?

No.

The phrase "on behalf of" is not synonymous with "is."

[Paul]

In federal tax cases, the government is always the plaintiff.

Nice try. The United States is never the plaintiff in a federal court case to establish tax liability. It might be in a collection action or to enforce an IRS summons, but when it comes to arguing with the United States about how much tax you owe, you will be the plaintiff.

And my first take on spidey's "who" is the United States questions was that he's setting up an argument that the US is not a human being type person, and therefore . . . who knows? Spidey, why don't you stop asking stupid questions and present your thesis, and then we'll have a nice discussion, and challenges to people who don't respond to questions about your thesis will be appropriate.

[Famspear]

We're up to over 112 posts in this thread, and Spidey has demonstrated that he doesn't understand basic legal concepts, including jurisdiction, precedent, and standing. He has also demonstrated that he lacks even a rudimentary understanding of how federal tax disputes end up in court -- by revealing that until now he had been operating under the goofy theory that the United States is always the plaintiff in a federal tax case.

Despite his obvious cluelessness, Spidey has persisted in a struggle to find someone to answer his immaterial questions -- possibly in a misguided attempt to pretend to be a pseudo-"law professor" in a Socratic exchange about federal tax law. And he has been doing this in exchanges with actual tax law experts -- who have plenty of experience with the Socratic method.

Spidey, you'd better come up with something quick, or somebody is gonna close this already elongated thread.

[Cathulhu]

That's kinda the point I was attempting to make.

[Pottapaug1938]

I agree. It's time for spidey to either say something worthwhile, and stop playing word games; and if he doesn't let's move on to another thread.

[LPC]

[Spidey] has also demonstrated that he lacks even a rudimentary understanding of how federal tax disputes end up in court -- by revealing that until now he had been operating under the goofy theory that the United States is always the plaintiff in a federal tax case.

For the benefit of newbies (and the clueless), let me explain:

There are only two ways that tax liabilities can be litigated:

1. If the IRS determines that that there is a deficiency, and sends the (alleged) taxpayer a "notice of deficiency," then the (alleged) taxpayer can file a petition with the Tax Court to contest the alleged deficiency. Under Tax Court Rule 142, and except as provided in 26 USC §7491, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove that the IRS is wrong.

2. If no petition is filed in Tax Court, then the (alleged) taxpayer can pay the tax and file a complaint for a refund in federal district court or the federal court of claims, in which case the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff (which is the taxpayer).

[grixit]

And on that, i'm locking the topic.

[LPC]

And on that, i'm locking the topic.

Why?

[grixit]

Because we've gone over 100 posts and all that's happening is eensy weency Spidey falling over and over again.

[Imalawman]

Because we've gone over 100 posts and all that's happening is eensy weency Spidey falling over and over again.

Well, that's not our policy anymore and the topic is on point and not going down rabbit trails. I don't think it qualifies for being locked just now. If you don't want to feed the troll, look elsewhere on the forum.

I'm unlocking it for now.

[Gregg]

Because we've gone over 100 posts and all that's happening is eensy weency Spidey falling over and over again.

Well, that's not our policy anymore and the topic is on point and not going down rabbit trails. I don't think it qualifies for being locked just now. If you don't want to feed the troll, look elsewhere on the forum.

I'm unlocking it for now.

But, but, but, you're making a ruling against another Quatloos moderator, you're not independent, you have to stick with the party line, this is like, like well, like a Federal Judge ruling FOR a taxpayer against the government, it just can't happen!

[The Observer]

OMG! I've been waiting for this moment! MODERATOR WARS!

[Imalawman]

OMG! I've been waiting for this moment! MODERATOR WARS!

Sigh...I was afraid of this. Actually, I didn't see that another thread had been opened. But nonetheless, it's no longer our policy to lock a thread at 100 posts as long as there aren't numerous Monty Python digressions.

[Famspear]

OMG! I've been waiting for this moment! MODERATOR WARS!

Sigh...I was afraid of this. Actually, I didn't see that another thread had been opened. But nonetheless, it's no longer our policy to lock a thread at 100 posts as long as there aren't numerous Monty Python digressions.

But a few Monty Python digressions are OK, right?