New Arguments...

[Kimokeo]

Three virgin dwarves?

from wiki The names of the Seven Dwarfs ("Bashful," "Doc," "Dopey," "Grumpy," "Happy," "Sleepy" and "Sneezy") were created for this production, chosen from a pool of about fifty potentials. Blabby, Jumpy, Shifty, and Snoopy were among those that were rejected (along with Scrappy, Cranky, Dirty, Awful, Silly, Daffy, Flabby, Jaunty, Biggo Ego, Chesty, Bald, Gabby, Nifty, Sniffy, Burpy, Lazy, Puffy, Dizzy, Stuffy and Tubby) [2].

If you think of three of the seven, which ones are virgins?
Dopey-maybe, but girls find him adorable.
Grumpy-understandable why he's so grumpy - so yes.
Happy - definitely not the virgin-type
Sleepy - he's awake some of the time and sleeps later - like most men, so probably not.
Sneezy - probably one of three unless he can control it.
Bashful - another maybe, being bashful doesn't deny one happiness, but it can make it hard.
Doc - always reminded me of Ben Franklin - I'd say he ain't one.

[Investor]

By the way, Happy's nickname is "Tripod"........

Him too, huh?

[silversopp]

True enough, but in the context of Demo's stated TP argument, this is irrelevant. That is, unless the TP population is claiming that Congress never passed the tax code?

I thought that was the issue - the whole "USC26 is not positive law" bit. Maybe I'm confusing two different arguments though.

[LPC]

A Constitutional Amendment does require some legislation in order for it to be effective.

Not really.

A constitutional amendment that gives Congress a new power doesn't mean anything until Congress enacts legislation exercising the power, but I don't know that the amendment is not "effective." (Is the First Amendment ineffective if no one gives a speech?)

A constitutional amendment that denies a power to Congress, or creates a new right, also doesn't seem to need any legislation because the courts can enforce the amendment. For example, the 14th Amendment has been enforced by the courts both with and without Congressional legislation.

However, I have sometimes wondered if Congress is supposed to identify what power they are exercising when they exercise it. The argument that "there are no Article III courts" seems to be based entirely on the lack of any statement in any statute that "these are Article III courts." Similarly, the argument to which Demo originally alluded might be that, if Congress never specifically referred to the 16th Amendment in the tax laws, then they are not really constitutional "income taxes" and not really enforceable.

[Investor]

Similarly, the argument to which Demo originally alluded might be that, if Congress never specifically referred to the 16th Amendment in the tax laws, then they are not really constitutional "income taxes" and not really enforceable.

You are most likely correct there. The argument, obviously, is a bunch of tripe. It actually leads right into the old Brushaber argument, in which the TP's point out that the SC said the 16th Amendment did not create a new power to tax. What their selective reading misses is the Court's explanation that Congress always had the power to tax incomes and, therefore, the 16th Amendment did not grant that power. The Court goes on to clarify exactly what the 16th Amendment really does mean. That explanation (which is common sense) is that the 16th Amendment clarified a disputed point (from Pollack) that an income tax, even an income tax on dividends and rental income, need not be apportioned.

The simple history lesson which is required to understand Brushaber is why that argument is my favorite crazy TB argument.

[John J. Bulten]

I don't think Mr. Bulten was around when I was last here. I am interested (for lack of a better word) to hear his gripe with the "fascist tax system".

And don't get me wrong, Bulten, I have serious issues with the tax system as well. One of them is not that it is unconstitutional or illegal, however.

No, I have no real gripes or issues with the tax system as codified in the IRC. No system of law is perfect, of course, and the imperfections of any system are in its abuses (cf. Churchill on democracy).

So I greatly appreciate our agreement that the system is Constitutional and legal, and our presumable agreement that any serious issues arise only from the system's abuse. (Most regulars here prefer to start with disagreement rather than agreement.) That gives me hope that you might actually be interested in the fruits of Pete Hendrickson's 2003 book Cracking the Code.

But before such a genial persona I'd proceed slowly. Can we start with your principle of authority? It seems axiomatic that the only moral judge one has is one's conscience; that conscience affirms one should obey the law whenever conscientiously possible; and that the law should be relatively easily obtained and easily interpreted. The supreme law of our land is naturally the Constitution with its 27 Amendments, the laws in its pursuance, and the treaties under its authority.

Of course in practice our government has given us some difficulties. Because the IRCs of 1986, 1954, and 1939 avowedly did not change the meaning of their predecessor statutes, and because there is no easy recourse to the amendment history in the important 1939-1954 era, the "easily obtained" is quite a challenge (see a partial attempt at http://www.losthorizons.com/Forum3/topi ... IC_ID=1604). And the system has also generated an unwieldy amount of case law, relegating "easily interpreted" to the hard research work usually undertaken only by a self-interested guild of mediators between ourselves and the law. But this (CtC) theory of the law's virtues is still usable by those willing to negotiate the abuses and take the effort to uphold the law. Would you agree so far?

[Quixote]

It seems axiomatic that the only moral judge one has is one's conscience; that conscience affirms one should obey the law whenever conscientiously possible;...

When are you planning on starting, Bulten? Oh, I forgot, everything you post here is purely for entertainment purposes and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Investor]

Well, that certainly is a lot to agree or disagree with. Let me take that post in its parts.

our presumable agreement that any serious issues arise only from the system's abuse

I'm not sure what "abuse" you speak of, so I am tentative about agreeing. If you are speaking about the political abuses that are inherent in our system of government, then I will agree. That is, the back-scratching and posturing that results in much of the text of our laws (not just tax laws), does leave a lot to be desired. Please elaborate on the abuses and I will give you a more definitive answer.

Can we start with your principle of authority?

Perhaps I am a bit slow, but I'm not sure what you are askig me here.

the system has also generated an unwieldy amount of case law, relegating "easily interpreted" to the hard research work usually undertaken only by a self-interested guild of mediators between ourselves and the law

The tax code is overly complex, I agree with that. However, the simplicity that many TP's strive for is not workable. Much of the Code deals with complex financial transactions. Those provisions of the Code must be complex in order to address the complexities of the business environment to which they relate. Luckily, most of those provisions have no impact on the calculation of the average person's tax liability. The typical TP will point to an area of the Code, IRC Sec. 861-865 for example, which is used for very specific business transactions and they will complain that they cannot understand these provisions. If they would just grasp the fact that these provisions only impact those with specific, complex business dealings, their lives would be much fuller for the lack of headaches.

It seems axiomatic that the only moral judge one has is one's conscience; that conscience affirms one should obey the law whenever conscientiously possible; and that the law should be relatively easily obtained and easily interpreted. The supreme law of our land is naturally the Constitution with its 27 Amendments, the laws in its pursuance, and the treaties under its authority.

I don't know how those sentences relate to one another, and it is entirely too enigmatic for me to formulate an opinion.

Of course in practice our government has given us some difficulties. Because the IRCs of 1986, 1954, and 1939 avowedly did not change the meaning of their predecessor statutes, and because there is no easy recourse to the amendment history in the important 1939-1954 era, the "easily obtained" is quite a challenge (see a partial attempt at http://www.losthorizons.com/Forum3/topi ... IC_ID=1604).

Again, it seems you are veiling your point here. The result is enigmatic text that does not allow me to formulate an opinion.

How are we doing so far?

[Imalawman]

If you don't know about CTC's argument, here is the run-down. Sec. 3401 states that the term employee "includes" government employees and corporate officers. Thus, under CTC (cracking the code) flawed logic, "includes" means "only". Therefore, only gov't workers and corp. officers are defined by the IRC as employees. Even though you will point out that this is a withholding statute and doesn't not limit 61 or 1 at all, Bulten will blather and fluster about until he somehow renders a mangled explanation that since 3401 is about defining wages, only gov't workers can earn wages, thus 61 only taxes those things properly classified as wages. Private sector earnings are not wages and therefore are not taxable. Bulten has yet to explain "from whatever source derived" means to his argument.

Enjoy the obfuscation.

[Investor]

Lawman - thanks for the run-down. I have never heard of that little piece of "literature".

I love the avatar by the way - "I'll burn this place to the ground".

[Kimokeo]

"We accept the Constitution. We accept the Amendments to the Constitution. We accept Treaties as the Law of the Land.

But, when it comes to court decisions - forget it. We don't accept court decisions. Even if the Supreme Court rules against us, they are wrong for we are our own sovereign authority (or God says so). We consider courts abusive and therefore they lack any authority. We are not under their jurisdiction because we don't like their answers."

Am I miss quoting here?

[John J. Bulten]

If you are speaking about the political abuses that are inherent in our system of government, then I will agree. That is, the back-scratching and posturing that results in much of the text of our laws (not just tax laws), does leave a lot to be desired .... The tax code is overly complex, I agree with that. However, the simplicity that many TP's strive for is not workable.

Amen to that! It's good that we Cracking the Code folks do not protest any taxes, because otherwise some might fall for an oversimplistic frivolous position. Rather, the tax honesty movement recognizes the complexity of its duty to uphold the written law.

It seems axiomatic that the only moral judge one has is one's conscience; that conscience affirms one should obey the law whenever conscientiously possible; and that the law should be relatively easily obtained and easily interpreted. The supreme law of our land is naturally the Constitution with its 27 Amendments, the laws in its pursuance, and the treaties under its authority.

I don't know how those sentences relate to one another, and it is entirely too enigmatic for me to formulate an opinion.

I apologize, I have been working for the past month here with another party who has extended difficulty with axioms such as that first sentence, so I too am being tentative. (Of course the second is just a paraphrase of Article 6 Paragraph 2).

What I'm really suggesting is that you seem amenable to recognizing and admitting some final authority, whether it be the dangerous "law unto oneself" (whatever one has said most recently), or "case law" (whatever the judges said most recently), or "supreme law" (Constitution, and consistent statutes and treaties), or "ideal law" (moral principles the Constitution aspires to). I submit my conscience to ideal law as final authority, and am routinely lambasted by those who claim to adhere to one of the several other authorities as if final. The conscience may be either rightly used to reflect universal law, or abused to manufacture a law unto oneself.

So Investor, do you recognize the authority of moral law (and the consequent authority it grants to Constitution, statutes, and case law), which the regulars here seem to have such trouble with? Or perhaps you affirm the authority of supreme law as final, and we can build from that affirmation instead? Thanks.

I see that Lawman has only succeeded in running down the argument ruled frivolous by Revenue Ruling 2006-18, and (again) pretended it is taught by CtC. You will not find it in the book or website; rather, CtC demonstrates that the term "includes" is expansive just as described in 26 USC 7701(c) and 26 CFR 403.5, and as held universally by the courts. As to his other plank, all income from whatever source derived, minus enumerated deductions, is taxable income (26 USC 63).

I see that Kimokeo has run down somebody's argument that court jurisdiction may be challenged by some general personal sovereign authority (which has nothing to do with CtC), and even pretended to be quoting somebody. Of course I saw this only after already writing above that moral law grants consequent authority to case law. But I trust you will ignore such strawmen as these two, since I bat them away regularly here.

[Investor]

Pardon my bluntness Mr. Bulten, I certainly do not intend to be rude, but you seem to be typing a lot without saying much. Could you please explain your position without all of the philisophical rhetoric? I just want to understand exactly what it is about the current tax system with which you disagree.

[John J. Bulten]

Like I said, I don't disagree with the current tax system (as embodied in moral law, Constitution, statutes, codes, regulations, case law, etc.). Political abuses of the system, back-scratching, posturing, etc., are not inherent to the system, and in the absence of a shared philosophical foundation are not worth disagreeing over. My cagy affirmation that CtC upholds the law merely intended to invite you to an open discussion of lawful interpretation of 7701(c) and 403.5, but since you appear more interested in frivolous arguments, you might do better to review Dan Evans's new additions this spring to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html .

[Investor]

but since you appear more interested in frivolous arguments

I am not sure where that came from. As I stated, I just want to hear your view on this. You don't seem to be very forthcoming with any sort of opinion or view.

[Investor]

My cagy affirmation that CtC upholds the law merely intended to invite you to an open discussion of lawful interpretation of 7701(c) and 403.5

OK, let's start there.

By 7701(c), I assume you mean IRC 7701:

The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

Seems pretty straight forward.

Now, what exactly do you mean by 403.5?

[Imalawman]

Bulten you're a liar and the most intellectually dishonest TP I’ve seen on here.

Your idea of "expansive" reading of "including" means all things that are otherwise within definition of the items already listed. This is hardly expansive, but limiting to only those things already defined. You know this too, you're just being dishonest. We mean, for instance, that when you see employee defined with the word "includes", includes means other things which would not fall within the category of gov't worker, but rather those things which would fall under the category of employee. Case after case can be cited for this reading of includes - you don't accept them.

Your idea of you agreeing with the tax code - income means what I want, where I want without regard to the plain meaning of the statute. You say that it can't mean what it says because congress never intended that result in 1910. Therefore even though the code was enacted in 1986, you hinge your understanding of the tax code in 1910. Really smart.

John, you don't agree with tax code and you damn well know you don't. When it comes down to it, you believe that taxes on personal, private sector earnings can't be taxes constitutionally. If you lose that argument you lose your theory of the tax code. Your hero Petey is going down in flames, you'd best not go down with him. But you probably will becuase you're a loser who is bitter at life and wants someone to give something for free. You talk big about patriots and working hard, but you're sure don't walk the walk.

How much time are you willing to let your wife serve in order to further worship your tax cheating, mail-bombing hero? You're a sick man.

Whew, that felt good.

[Quixote]

but since you appear more interested in frivolous arguments ...

If you are interested in frivolous arguments, I suggest Cracking the Code by Peter Hendrickson. The frivolity starts on page 2 and continues unabated throughout the book. The only thing that's missing from CTC is an argument, frivolous or otherwise, in support of Hendrickson's conclusion that he and most Americans owe no income tax.

[Duke2Earl]

It's the same old stuff. They get to self decide the law, what it means and how it applies to them without any interference from those corrupt courts. He gets to ignore courts in favor of the "ideal" law that he decides for himself. The bottom line is simple.... this "person" like others of his ilk is an anarchist no matter what crap he says about following the law... he follows his self decided law.... and what a coincidence.... under his self decided law he doesn't have to pay income tax.

[Famspear]

Captain Kickback wrote:

If I were angry, I would say John Bulten is a greedy, self-centered, lying, humorless prick of the first order who cloaks himself in failed rhetoric, cheap sophistry and dispeptic attitude, not unlike a cheap, skanky, streetwalking whore.

Yes, but you say that like it's a negative.

In Bizarro Bulten World, there's no telling what this could mean. --Famspear