Phil Hart

[ashlynne39]

You may be recollecting the French, Ashlynne, when they first threw off their despotic capitation-fed government, among their earliest acts was leading virtually every tax collector straight to the guillotine for a de-capitation? No relax, we're a peaceful forgiving people.

I'm not actually "recollecting" anything. I'm reposting the BS about lawyers posted on the link you cited. And yes, those sovereign types are really peaceful people - - - that is before they start shooting up the joint or threatening to hang people which seem to be their two favorite ways of handling matters.

[lorne]

Oh yes, much more. Banjo you, and the courts, are saying the Income Tax is an excise. I agree. And yes "the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them" provided that those salaries were first "income" as described in law. You should be careful Banjo, I believe your excise stance to be contrary to most here, although you're probably tolerated as an overall net asset.

Actually Famspear it appears quite easy, once you grasp the limited nature of "income." I can dismiss the bulk of the tax code as N/A. Oh I see how they entrap everyone with their forms and the conventional wisdom of "that's just the way it's done." I have every intention of escaping this trap.

I'm coming to understand the role you're all playing. A mind game.

..we suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies ... will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity(confusion).
Why should you be worried about this?

Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com explains it:
Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

http://informationliberation.com/?id=31618

[Famspear]

......Actually Famspear it appears quite easy, once you grasp the limited nature of "income." I can dismiss the bulk of the tax code as N/A. Oh I see how they entrap everyone with their forms and the conventional wisdom of "that's just the way it's done." I have every intention of escaping this trap.

I'm coming to understand the role you're all playing. A mind game.

Oh, gosh, you're just too smart for us. Fortunately for the evil international banksters, we (the Illuminati) have already implanted electronic mind control devices in your head. We knew that there would be some of you who would just be too strong to fall for our machinations. So, we're resorting to powerful mind control technology as a backup. Don't worry, it's relatively painless. Resistance is futile.

Uuuuusse the force, Luke......

[jg]

As to the "limited nature of income" please read and digest what the Supreme court has ruled. On the contrary, there are many decision that refer to the plenary power of Congress to tax.

For example, from COMMISSIONER v. GLENSHAW GLASS CO., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)

This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power." <omit cites> Respondents contend that punitive damages, characterized as "windfalls" flowing from the culpable conduct of third parties, are not within the scope of the section. But Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted. <omit cites> Thus, the fortuitous gain accruing to a lessor by reason of the forfeiture of a lessee's improvements on the rented property was taxed in Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461 . <omit cites> Such decisions demonstrate that we cannot but ascribe content to the catchall provision of 22 (a), "gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever." The importance of that phrase has been too frequently recognized since its first appearance in the Revenue Act of 1913 to say now that it adds nothing to the meaning of "gross income."

Nor can we accept respondent's contention that a narrower reading of 22 (a) is required by the Court's characterization of income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." The Court was there endeavoring to determine whether the distribution of a corporate stock dividend constituted a realized gain to the shareholder, or changed "only the form, not the essence," of his capital investment. Id., at 210. It was held that the taxpayer had "received nothing out of the company's assets for his separate use and benefit." Id., at 211. The distribution, therefore, was held not a taxable event. In that context - distinguishing gain from capital - the definition served a useful purpose. But it was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions. <omit cites>

Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion. The mere fact that the payments were extracted from the wrongdoers as punishment for unlawful conduct cannot detract from their character as taxable income to the recipients. Respondents concede, as they must, that the recoveries are taxable to the extent that they compensate for damages actually incurred. It would be an anomaly that could not be justified in the absence of clear congressional intent to say that a recovery for actual damages is taxable but not the additional amount extracted as punishment for the same conduct which caused the injury. And we find no such evidence of intent to exempt these payments.

The full case, with cites, is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 8&page=426

Hart, Hendrickson and others have tried to make a case that income subject to tax is limited to certain activity. But that is contrary to the fact that "Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted. "

[The Operative]

Oh yes, much more. Banjo you, and the courts, are saying the Income Tax is an excise. I agree. And yes "the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them" provided that those salaries were first "income" as described in law.

Nonsense. There isn't some special definition of income within the law. All income is included within gross income within the tax code. However, there are deductions for adjusted gross income and deductions from adjusted gross income that result in a person's taxable income.

Now, when I say income, I am not claiming that everything that comes in is income. Income are gains or accessions to wealth. When you loan a person $100 and that person pays you back $110, the first $100 is not income. It is what you had before and is not a part of the gain. In other words, it is wealth that you had before and is not a gain. The extra $10 is income.

It is the similar with your wages or salary, though your labor is not wealth to you. However, when you use your labor and an employer pays you for that labor, you have a gain. You have more wealth after receiving your pay than you did before. That is clearly within gross income.

You should be careful Banjo, I believe your excise stance to be contrary to most here, although you're probably tolerated as an overall net asset.

Cpt. Banjo is a respected poster here. Also, his excise stance is probably not contrary to others who post here because we understand the income tax where it is obvious that you do not. To put it simply, the Supreme Court and all of the lower courts have consistently ruled that wages are income. Whether the courts call the income tax an indirect duty or excise or if they call it an unapportioned direct tax is actually irrelevant. The 16th amendment says that a tax on incomes does not need to be apportioned. Therefore, if a court says it is a direct tax, it doesn't need to be apportioned. The same can be said if the court says it is an indirect tax.

Actually Famspear it appears quite easy, once you grasp the limited nature of "income." I can dismiss the bulk of the tax code as N/A. Oh I see how they entrap everyone with their forms and the conventional wisdom of "that's just the way it's done." I have every intention of escaping this trap.

More nonsense. WAGES ARE INCOME.

It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek's understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be. - Cheek v. United States 498 U.S. 192 (1991)

it is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Income Tax Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any [person] of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections.

I'm coming to understand the role you're all playing. A mind game.

Nonsense. We don't play mind games with someone who comes here without one or one that is switched off.

[Cpt Banjo]

Banjo you, and the courts, are saying the Income Tax is an excise. I agree. And yes "the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them" provided that those salaries were first "income" as described in law.

After the 16th Amendment, it's really unimportant how one labels the income tax -- whether it's an excise, a duty, or a direct tax doesn't matter, because the Amendment says it doesn't have to be apportioned, period. The kind of tax it is would be relevant only if it weren't geographically uniform (which it is); in such a case, it would have to be a direct tax to be valid.

Given that the Supreme Court has limited direct taxes to capitation taxes and taxes on real and personal property solely because of ownership, and given ts expansive view of what an excise is, it's pretty clear to me that the income tax is an excise upon the receipt of income.*

But your suggestion that there are certain kinds of income that can't be constitutionally taxed or that there are certain kinds of salaries that aren't "income" is utterly absurd. No court in the history of the country has ever held that compensation for work can't be taxed by Congress; to the contrary, every time some chowderhead has wasted the courts' time by arguing such rubbish, he has lost and, in many cases, received a monetary sanction for making such a patently frivolous argument.

*Note to other tax geeks: I realize there are certain things the Code labels as income that really aren't (e.g., the imputed interest on a below-market loan), but if Congress can tax the transactions in which they occur (which I think they can), it doesn't seem to matter.

[notorial dissent]

Still, it could have been worse, as he only ripped off Japanese investors and not Japanese Yakuza investors........

Actually it would have been a much better solution, we wouldn't be having to foot his Federal retirement, he wouldn't be scamming anyone ever again on the off chance he ever gets out, and it would all be over and done with.

Actually, I think he sounds exactly the type of people Harvey would and seems to be attracted to, the morally and ethically challenged, sounds like hamster company to me.

[lorne]

Well the Sup Court has ruled 3 times that the 16th granted no additional taxation power. Yes they have the power, Congress can tax anything but the issue is - what is taxed under these Revenue Acts? Yes, wages[statutory] are income, but wages[common] are not necessarily INCOME under the tax code. But really, it's not my job to show you the way - youre free to pay taxes you don't owe.

thanks for the M. Armstrong "endorsement" - will check him out. I'm discovering those most despised and ridiculed by the Quatloosers actually have the most to teach.

I see that Judge Blackburn on July 16 has struck down the Stolen Valor Act as unconstitutional. Sorry, can't link to article.

[The Operative]

Well the Sup Court has ruled 3 times that the 16th granted no additional taxation power.

Right, because the Supreme Court said that Congress had the power from the beginning. The Supreme Court said that the 16th amendment prevented the income tax from being constitutionally classified as a direct tax and ensured that it is an indirect tax. The fact that some lower courts have called the income tax a direct unapportioned tax is actually irrelevant. The end result is the same whether it is classified as an indirect tax or a direct one where the apportionment requirement is removed.

Yes they have the power, Congress can tax anything but the issue is - what is taxed under these Revenue Acts? Yes, wages[statutory] are income, but wages[common] are not necessarily INCOME under the tax code.

Nonsense. Included within the tax code's definition of gross income is any financial benefit conferred on a person as compensation for his or her labor in whatever form. If a person receives anything of value in exchange for his or her labor, that is income. PERIOD.

But really, it's not my job to show you the way - youre free to pay taxes you don't owe.

It is not our job to show you that these ideas that you have latched on to idiotic, but you are free to be an idiot. Just don't blame us when the tax man catches up to you.

thanks for the M. Armstrong "endorsement" - will check him out. I'm discovering those most despised and ridiculed by the Quatloosers actually have the most to teach.

If your goal is to learn how to become a convicted felon...

[Harvester]

"WAGES ARE INCOME" is a correct statement. But not all earnings paid to a worker qualify as "wages" as that term is defined in tax law.

It appears Armstrong is where he is more for standing up to the banksters than any criminal wrongdoing. Goldman Sachs wanted his economic model and when asked to join 'the club' he refused. And speaking of GS, I enjoyed this one: [link redacted]

[Famspear]

The fact that some lower courts have called the income tax a direct unapportioned tax is actually irrelevant. The end result is the same whether it is classified as an indirect tax or a direct one where the apportionment requirement is removed.

That is a crucial point that we have explained to the wackadoosters over and over and over and over again. They just don't get it, and they never will.

[LPC]

Hart reportedly also owes $53,000 in Idaho state income tax, interest, and penalties.

According to this recent report, he's had to file an appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court because he missed the hearing on his tax liabilities.

Boo hoo.

[Pottapaug1938]

Lorne, my little loon--

A neurotic builds castles in the sky. A psychotic moves in.

... and psychiatrists collect the rent.

[Demosthenes]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/s ... egislator/

Attorneys for the Idaho State Tax Commission have filed their response to Rep. Phil Hart’s state income tax appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, writing that Hart seems to be arguing different rules apply to him just because he’s a state legislator.

[notorial dissent]

Well, of course, Phil is "special", the thing is we don't want to know just how "special" or in what particular way he's "special".

So he went from the income tax is unconstitutional to he is exempt from civil process because he was a legislator. My isn't that just too "special" for words. Can't be bothered with the system until it is convenient for him.

Maybe they'll reserve a "special" cell for him at the state lockup when it comes to that, and I suspect that it will eventually come to that.

[Lambkin]

http://stateimpact.npr.org/idaho/2011/1 ... phil-hart/

... Idaho lawmaker Phil Hart is being sued for nearly $550,000 in unpaid income taxes, penalties and interest. The U.S. government is asking Idaho’s federal district court to sign off on foreclosing some of Hart’s property in Kootenai County.

[Lambkin]

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/11/0 ... oader.html

Our View: A freedom fighter? More like a freeloader.

Well, the feds went too far this time. In that jackboot-wearing, black-helicopter-flying manner of theirs.

Yes, they went and made a martyr out of Rep. Phil Hart.

This poor principled tax protester. In jeopardy of losing his Kootenai County home — all because he’s standing up for what he believes to be right.

What a tragic storyline.

Of course, it is fictional.

The only reason Hart now faces foreclosure is because he owes $549,703.48 in unpaid federal income taxes and penalties — dating back to 1996. The federal government filed a tax lien on Hart’s property in November 2010.

[wserra]

The complaint.

[Demosthenes]

Hart hires attorney.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/20 ... -attorney/

[notorial dissent]

Anybody know anything about "Kentucky attorney Charles E. McFarland "? Sounds like he has a bit of track record, and not in a good way, in this sort of thing.