Rallying Cry 2

[SteveSy]

Excise
A tax imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege. A tax on the manufacture, sale, or use of goods or on the carrying on of an occupation or activity, or a tax on the transfer of property. In current usage the term has been extended to include various license fees and practically every internal revenue tax except the income tax (e.g., federal alcohol and tobacco excise taxes).

The act performed is the receipt of income in the instance of the income tax. Some might consider FICA taxes as a tax for engaging in an occupation rather than performance of the act of receipt of income. So this definition is broad enough to encompass income tax on wage earners.

There are no doubt others or even more fitting definitions but I did not want to spend more than a few minutes on this.

Next....

[jg]

You asked for any definition that included the income tax. That it is not the "current usage" does not change the definition.

Your inability or unwillingness to accept what you asked for does not mean the answer has not been provided.

Demo: The correct answer to what is 1+3 is 2+2 !

[natty]

Actually there hasn't been one single case ever concerning the constitutionality of taxing a wage or salary earner on his earnings.

The appellant is Lucas v. Earl was not dumb enough to challenge the constitutionality of the income tax, but the SC said "there is no doubt the statute taxed salaries to those who earned them".

Sometimes the law is so obvious that it would take only an idiot with the necessary temerity to bring it up.

You're right it does.....but not all salaries. If we take your statement as you would like me to take it, it literally means all salaries which would include taxing the French in France. We know, and can agree, it is limited to some degree it doesn't mean all. It is certainly limited to the confines of the constitution.

That's all you got? You challenge my point with taxing the salary of a frenchman? Too funny. The law specifically excludes non-US connected income of non-resident aliens.

I am still waiting for you to explain how apportionment or uniformity "limits" the taxing power in any way. (run away and hide now, stevesy)

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

For one there is no such thing as a constitutional "income tax". The constitution doesn't allow for an income tax.

After we pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has indeed repeatedly upheld the Federal income tax, SteveSy wrote:

Yep, they sure have just none on the earnings of the average person. Actually there hasn't been one single case ever concerning the constitutionality of taxing a wage or salary earner on his earnings. There are a multitude of cases concerning corporate income and the earnings of federally licensed businesses.

Wait, a minute Steve first you say that there is no such thing as a constitutional income tax, that the constitution doesn’t allow for an income tax. Now you’re admitting that the Supreme Court has ruled income taxes constitutional, but you’re pointing out that the Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on earnings of the average person.

Of course, you ignore the point that the lower courts have repeatedly ruled that wages of individuals are taxable, and that the Supreme Court has had plenty of opportunity to overturn that -- and has never done so.

Now you’re saying that the Supreme Court cases involve only corporate income and the earnings of federally licensed businesses. That is blatantly false. Look at Merchants’ Loan. The estate of a dead person is not only not a federally licensed business, it’s not a business at all. Go back and read the case. The taxpayer was the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, decedent.

The tenor of your argument is now approaching that of protester John J. Bulten, whose essentially tries to pick out some factual difference from the cases and argue that because your facts are different (such as, corporate income tax in case X, but tax on individual earnings, in your case), the law must somehow be different for individuals. That tack will work only if the factual differences are significant enough to be distinguishable under the law. Unfortunately, in your case they are not.

Another error you are making is that you are impliedly arguing that if the Supreme Court has never ruled on your particular issue, framed just the way you want it framed, then the law on that point must not really be the law.

Baloney.

The United States Supreme Court hears very few cases. And there is nothing in American law that says that something isn’t really the law until the Supreme Court rules on it. The law is found in the Constitution, and in statutes, and in court decisions, etc. That includes Tax Court and District Court decisions, too, Steve.

The most recent tax protester case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court was Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991). Mr. John Cheek had argued for years that his wages were not taxable. He was convicted of tax evasion. He apparently did not specifically argue before the Supreme Court itself that wages were not taxable – so if you were to point out that the Supreme Court did not rule on that specific issue, you would be correct.

However, in Cheek the United States Supreme Court ruled that a genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law (such as a mistake based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law itself) would be a valid defense to a charge of "willfulness" ("willfulness" in this case being knowledge or awareness that one is violating the tax law itself), even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable.

A further stumbling block for tax protesters is found in the ''Cheek'' Doctrine with respect to arguments about "constitutionality." Under the Doctrine, the mistaken belief that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional is not treated as a belief that one is not violating the "tax law" -- i.e., the error is not treated as having been caused by the "complexity of the tax law."

In the Cheek case, regarding Mr. Cheek’s argument on constitutionality, the United States Supreme Court specifically stated:

Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. [ . . . ]

We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. [ . . . ] As we see it, he [John Cheek] is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who willfully refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.

Because of an error in the jury instructions, Mr. Cheek’s case was remanded for a new trial, at which he was convicted. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court again, and the Supreme Court let his conviction stand. He went to prison.

Oh, by the way Steve, let’s look at your statement:

I'm asking you to find ANY definition, legal or otherwise, of an excise that includes taxing the average person on his earnings. Nice try though.

Stop agonizing over the term "excise" and get to the point. The U.S. courts have consistently rejected arguments that "wages" or "labor" are not taxable as income under the Internal Revenue Code. For example:

-----''United States v. Connor'', 898 F.2d 942, 90-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,166 (3d Cir. 1990) (tax evasion conviction under 26 USC 7201 affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; taxpayer’s argument -- that because of the Sixteenth Amendment, wages were not taxable -- was rejected by the Court; taxpayer’s argument that an income tax on wages is required to be apportioned by population also rejected);

-----''Perkins v. Commissioner'', 746 F.2d 1187, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9898 (6th Cir. 1984) (26 USC 61 ruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to be “in full accordance with Congressional authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to impose taxes on income without apportionment among the states”; taxpayer’s argument that wages paid for labor are non-taxable was rejected by the Court, and ruled frivolous);

-----''White v. United States'', 2005-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,289 (6th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____ (2005) (taxpayer’s argument -- that wages are not taxable -- was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; penalty imposed under 26 USC 6702 for filing tax return with frivolous position was therefore proper);

-----''Granzow v. Commissioner'', 739 F.2d 265, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9660 (7th Cir. 1984) (taxpayer’s argument -- that wages are not taxable -- was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and ruled frivolous);

-----''Waters v. Commissioner'', 764 F.2d 1389, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9512 (11th Cir. 1985) (taxpayer’s argument -- that income taxation of wages is unconstitutional -- was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; taxpayer required to pay damages for filing frivolous suit).

In the White case in 2004 cited above, the Supreme Court specifically refused to hear the tax protester’s case.

You, Steve, are apparently arguing that the Tax Court is wrong, that the District Courts are wrong, that the Appeals Courts are wrong, and that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the White case was wrong in upholding the judgment against a tax protester who argued that wages are not taxable. Yet, the Supreme Court refused to hear the White case, thereby letting the judgment stand.

But of course you don’t accept court rulings anyway, right. You think you can decide for yourself what the law is. Ok, let’s hear another lame SteveSy excuse.

[Cpt Banjo]

Springer was unique due to Springer's circumstances...the Supreme Court in Pollock stated so. Besides, like I said he fell within the generally accepted definition of an excise, he was a federally licensed lawyer.

Stevie well knows that Springer’s occupation played no role in the Court’s decision. It was so irrelevant that the Court never mentioned what it was. Nor did it need to, since its rationale was that direct taxes consisted solely of capitation taxes and taxes on land, and that the income tax was neither. Under this rationale, the taxpayer’s occupation is completely beside the point.

The Springer rationale was modified in Pollock, but only to the extent of extending the notion of direct taxes to those on personal property and on the income from property. But in dicta the Pollock court made it clear that it viewed taxes on wages and personal earnings as excises.

I'm asking you to find ANY definition, legal or otherwise, of an excise that includes taxing the average person on his earnings.

Here you go:

…this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise… Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

If the gift of property may be taxed we cannot say that there is any want of constitutional power to tax the receipt of it, whether as the result of inheritance, Stebbins v. Riley, 268 U.S. 137 , 45 S.Ct. 424, 44 A.L.R. 1454, or otherwise, whatever name may be given to the tax…Receipt in possession and enjoyment is as much a taxable occasion within the reach of the federal taxing power as the enjoyment of any other incident of property. Fernandez v. Weiner, 326 U. S. 340 (1945)

[iplawyer]

SteveSy said:

Springer was unique due to Springer's circumstances...the Supreme Court in Pollock stated so. Besides, like I said he fell within the generally accepted definition of an excise, he was a federally licensed lawyer.

Prove it. Very few lawyers are federally licensed.

[Nikki]

SteveSy said:

Springer was unique due to Springer's circumstances...the Supreme Court in Pollock stated so. Besides, like I said he fell within the generally accepted definition of an excise, he was a federally licensed lawyer.

Prove it. Very few lawyers are federally licensed.

Very Few ?

Are there any? Is there a Federal (as opposed to State) bar association? Is there a Federal Bar examination?

Steve is spinning his wheels -- again.

[iplawyer]

SteveSy said:

Springer was unique due to Springer's circumstances...the Supreme Court in Pollock stated so. Besides, like I said he fell within the generally accepted definition of an excise, he was a federally licensed lawyer.

Prove it. Very few lawyers are federally licensed.

Very Few ?

Are there any? Is there a Federal (as opposed to State) bar association? Is there a Federal Bar examination?

Steve is spinning his wheels -- again.

Yes, you can get a license to represent clients in Tax Court, and you can get a license to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office. Niether existed in Springer's time, though.

[Cpt Banjo]

SteveSy said:

Springer was unique due to Springer's circumstances...the Supreme Court in Pollock stated so. Besides, like I said he fell within the generally accepted definition of an excise, he was a federally licensed lawyer.

Prove it. Very few lawyers are federally licensed.

Very Few ?

Are there any? Is there a Federal (as opposed to State) bar association? Is there a Federal Bar examination?

Steve is spinning his wheels -- again.

For once, Stevie spoke the truth. During the Civil War, Congress enacted excise taxes in the form of licenses on various occupations, including not only lawyers and other traditional professionals, but also auctioneers, peddlers, photographers, tobacconists, and even jugglers. In fact, there was a $10 license fee imposed on any business, trade, or profession where the annual gross receipts exceeded $1,000. Here's the $10 license fee on lawyers:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=285

Of course, these "licenses" were nothing more than taxes, so if it would make Stevie feel better, let's just have Congress impose a $.01 "license fee" to engage in any income-producing activity. That way, he'd have no grounds to complain about the income tax, since it'd automatically involve a federal privilege.

[Quixote]

Ateve"

I'm asking you to find ANY definition, legal or otherwise, of an excise that includes taxing the average person on his earnings.

This is where Steve leaves logic behind. Steve repeatedly relies on the Brushaber Court's holding that all taxes on income are excises, then turns around and insists that the income tax imposed by IRC §1 et seq is not an excise. As Paul has noted repeatedly, Steve will often make the switch in mid-argument.

Actually there hasn't been one single case ever concerning the constitutionality of taxing a wage or salary earner on his earnings.

In addition to the cases cited above, there's always Brushaber. The Court found the 1913 act constitutional in all its aspects, including the taxing of wages and salaries. If it had not, Brushaber would have won.

[SteveSy]

Wait, a minute Steve first you say that there is no such thing as a constitutional income tax, that the constitution doesn’t allow for an income tax. Now you’re admitting that the Supreme Court has ruled income taxes constitutional, but you’re pointing out that the Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on earnings of the average person.

I didn't change anything. My position has been stated so many times I find it unnecessary to regurgitate it verbatim. Sorry you missed the other 6000+ posts.

Of course, you ignore the point that the lower courts have repeatedly ruled that wages of individuals are taxable, and that the Supreme Court has had plenty of opportunity to overturn that -- and has never done so.

True, but just because they did not accept a case does not mean it did not have merit, unless specifically stated so. Considering that are far, far, far more working people paying taxes than there are people who fall in to the definition of an excise, held by every dictionary, it’s a little strange that not one single case has ever been heard by the Supreme Court so that it can be reviewed on the merits. It’s not like the cases that were heard were super complicated. They were pretty simple; they claimed a tax that got to their income was simply unconstitutional.

Now you’re saying that the Supreme Court cases involve only corporate income and the earnings of federally licensed businesses. That is blatantly false. Look at Merchants’ Loan.

That is not what I've said. I have said it can tax those things. Again, you've missed all my other posts in the past so you do not know my position. All you need to be concerned with is a tax on a working man's earnings from working not engaged in interstate activity. That is about the only thing I believe will not be taxable with an "income tax".

The estate of a dead person is not only not a federally licensed business, it’s not a business at all. Go back and read the case. The taxpayer was the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, decedent.

I believe congress has the power to tax estates because the government is taxing the privilege.

To illustrate:

It is not necessary to review these cases or state at length the reasoning by which they are supported. They are based on two principles: 1. An inheritance tax is not one on property, but one on the succession. 2. The right to take property by devise or descent is the creature of the law, and not a natural right -- a privilege, and therefore the authority which confers it may impose conditions upon it. From these principles it is deduced that the states may tax the privilege, discriminate between relatives, and between these and strangers, and grant exemptions, and are not precluded from this power by the provisions of the respective state constitutions requiring uniformity and equality of taxation.

- Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 283 (1898)

Flint makes it clear that even though a State created a privilege it does not deny congress from also taxing that privilege.

Stop agonizing over the term "excise" and get to the point. The U.S. courts have consistently rejected arguments that "wages" or "labor" are not taxable as income under the Internal Revenue Code.

So what? None of them have EVER even taken the time to research it. They all dismiss it out of hand or more often misquote, exactly backwards, the Brushaber decision. You're citing courts who have proven themselves incompetent on too many occasions to count. Where’s the beef, cough up the evidence stop parroting or quoting what someone else said. Show me where they presented the facts to back up their opinion?

I've looked up all of those cases and followed the cases they cited and so on and so forth. None of them even made an attempt to make a decision based on fact. They all simply dismiss it out of hand without researching anything other than to cite another case which also researched nothing nor presented anything to back up their opinion.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

[ . . . ] it’s a little strange that not one single case has ever been heard by the Supreme Court so that it can be reviewed on the merits. It’s not like the cases that were heard were super complicated. They were pretty simple; they claimed a tax that got to their income was simply unconstitutional.

Well, I tell you what, Steve, you have my permission to write to the U.S. Supreme Court and scold the Court for not reviewing, on the merits, a tax protester case where a protester argued that ordinary wages, etc., were not taxable. Be sure to mention in your letter that "it's not like the cases are super complicated." And while you're at it, mention to the Court in your letter that you believe you have the "right" to determine what the law is.

You will get about as far with the Court with these kinds of arguments as you are getting here in Quatloos.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

So what? None of them have EVER even taken the time to research it. They all dismiss it out of hand or more often misquote, exactly backwards, the Brushaber decision. You're citing courts who have proven themselves incompetent on too many occasions to count. Where’s the beef, cough up the evidence stop parroting or quoting what someone else said. Show me where they presented the facts to back up their opinion?

No, Steve, the Francisco case is the only case I can think of (off the top of my head) where a court misconstrued something from the text of Brushaber.

Steve, you are in no position to make a judgment on whether any court of law has "proved itself incompetent." You didn't even know what the holdings in Brushaber were until I gave them to you.

YOU are parroting garbarge from tax protester web sites, not I. I have studied thousands of actual court decisions. I don't read a law professor's analysis of a court decision to find out what the court ruled, and neither does any other lawyer, really. And legal research and analysis involves mainly the study of primary authority (the actual verbatim texts of statutes, court cases, etc.), not some loony commentary by tax protesters.

The very fact that you cite a case like Brushaber shows that you have been reading and absorbing at least some tax protester literature. A case like Brushaber is the WORST kind of case a tax protester should want to cite -- a United States Supreme Court case where the Federal income tax was ruled constitutional. Same thing with Stanton and Merchants' Loan -- cases cited over and over by protesters.

I know this is hard for you to grasp, Steve, but you are completely outclassed.

Where's the beef, Steve? I'll tell you where the beef is. I have watched you flail and bob around here in Quatloos like a man in a rowboat trying to stop a battleship. You've had so much of the beef, so much of the real meat of what the tax law really is, shoved down your throat by other posters here so many times you can't even burp anymore.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

[ . . . ] it’s a little strange that not one single case has ever been heard by the Supreme Court so that it can be reviewed on the merits. It’s not like the cases that were heard were super complicated. They were pretty simple; they claimed a tax that got to their income was simply unconstitutional.

Well, I tell you what, Steve, you have my permission to write to the U.S. Supreme Court and scold the Court for not reviewing, on the merits, a tax protester case where a protester argued that ordinary wages, etc., were not taxable. Be sure to mention in your letter that "it's not like the cases are super complicated." And while you're at it, mention to the Court in your letter that you believe you have the "right" to determine what the law is.

You will get about as far with the Court with these kinds of arguments as you are getting here in Quatloos.

I think you're right, but not because I am wrong. It would be mighty tough to cut the heart out of congress's primary revenue stream. Most likely even if it were unconstitutional the Supreme Court would let it continue under the premise that anything else would destroy the operation of government.

There is too much evidence to not at least accept the question has enough merit for a proper review. Considering all of the historical evidence showing so many people in the past considered it a direct tax requiring apportionment. Considering every country we may have formed our opinion of what a direct tax is and what it taxes consider a general income tax to be a direct tax. Considering how a general tax on income is in essence a capitation tax measured by earnings. Considering every dictionary there is, legal or otherwise, still to this day do not include the word “income” in the definition because no contributing scholar considered it appropriate.

[Joey Smith]

I think you're right, but not because I am wrong.

No, it is because you are wrong, Stevie, as we have established time-after-time-after time ad nauseum. IF the income tax were unconstutional, the U.S. Supreme Court would not have a moment's hesitancy to declare it so, and the county would then go on to a VAT (which is what the Administration wants behind the scenes), a National Sales Tax, or any of many other types of tax.

In truth, none of that has anything to do with it. The U.S. Supreme Court has not exercised any of its many thousands of opportunities to declare the income tax unconstitutional for the simple reason that it is 100% constitutional as the court has repeatedly held.

Other arguments are just so much unsupported nonsense.

[SteveSy]

No, Steve, the Francisco case is the only case I can think of (off the top of my head) where a court misconstrued something from the text of Brushaber.

You only knew that because I showed you. Parker and Becraft are other cases that do the same thing. Then there are the multitude of cases that cite those cases. You apparently have given little time to find out what and why the courts have said. The only thing you pay attention to or have interest in is the quick quotes that simply say people like me are wrong.

Steve, you are in no position to make a judgment on whether any court of law has "proved itself incompetent." You didn't even know what the holdings in Brushaber were until I gave them to you.[/q

I know what Brushaber said, you showed me nothing.

YOU are parroting garbarge from tax protester web sites, not I.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. All this is, is an attempt to diminish my character by untrue accusations. Prove I'm parroting stuff from any TP site. I don’t even go to TP sites.

I have studied thousands of actual court decisions. I don't read a law professor's analysis of a court decision to find out what the court ruled, and neither does any other lawyer, really. And legal research and analysis involves mainly the study of primary authority (the actual verbatim texts of statutes, court cases, etc.), not some loony commentary by tax protesters.

I don't study anything from Tax protestors.

The very fact that you cite a case like Brushaber shows that you have been reading and absorbing at least some tax protester literature. A case like Brushaber is the WORST kind of case a tax protester should want to cite -- a United States Supreme Court case where the Federal income tax was ruled constitutional. Same thing with Stanton and Merchants' Loan -- cases cited over and over by protesters.

I only cited Brushaber to show the court can't even read. I did not use Brushaber to prove I'm right about income taxes. Another attempt at diminishing my character by making up crap. This is the only way people like you think you can win....when all else fails attack their character.

Btw, Famspear how is that charge of misappropriation of client funds going for you? Would you like me to get on your level and continue with such statements?

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

There is too much evidence to not at least accept the question has enough merit for a proper review. Considering all of the historical evidence showing so many people in the past considered it a direct tax requiring apportionment

Well, I respectfully disagree, if you're saying that there's lots of evidence that many people in the past considered an income tax on wages to be a direct tax requiring apportionment. Even in the Pollock case, the Supreme Court noted that taxes on employments were considered excises (indirect taxes).

How many court cases can you cite before the year, say, 1975, where someone even tried to argue that a tax on compensation for personal services (regardless of whether called wages, salaries, or whatever) was a direct tax requiring apportionment?

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

There is too much evidence to not at least accept the question has enough merit for a proper review. Considering all of the historical evidence showing so many people in the past considered it a direct tax requiring apportionment

Well, I respectfully disagree, if you're saying that there's lots of evidence that many people in the past considered an income tax on wages to be a direct tax requiring apportionment. Even in the Pollock case, the Supreme Court noted that taxes on employments were considered excises (indirect taxes).

There is a big difference between a tax on employments, a license tax, and a tax on their earnings without benefit of license.

How many court cases can you cite before the year, say, 1975, where someone even tried to argue that a tax on compensation for personal services (regardless of whether called wages, salaries, or whatever) was a direct tax requiring apportionment?

I have never claimed my arguments would win in court. In fact I will wholly agree it's almost a guaranteed loser. I will ask you this though, how many tort cases would be won if the company being sued got to appoint and pay the salary of the judge presiding over the case? It's not rocket science. Congress won't even stop using the thousands upon thousands of earmarks, why would congress appoint, or even consider, someone who would potentially cut all that and much more off. And even if one got through by mistake, which is nearly an impossibility in this day and age, what is the likelihood a judge would put himself up for certain failure and humiliation by his peers on appeal?

It would be the same as a judge taking the proper view of the general welfare clause, and claiming all appropriations for local projects are unconstitutional. That has lots of merit but will never be considered due to the above.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

You only knew that because I showed you. Parker and Becraft are other cases that do the same thing. Then there are the multitude of cases that cite those cases. You apparently have given little time to find out what and why the courts have said. The only thing you pay attention to or have interest in is the quick quotes that simply say people like me are wrong.

No, Steve, you are quite wrong. As I have said before, I have studied thousands of court cases – the actual texts.

SteveSy wrote:

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. All this is, is an attempt to diminish my character by untrue accusations. Prove I'm parroting stuff from any TP site. I don’t even go to TP sites.

Steve, I am not trying to diminish your character. Think of this as “tough love.” I am trying to shake you up. You cited Brushaber for a tax protester argument. You would never have done that had you not gotten the idea from tax protester literature. Do you really think you’re fooling us?

SteveSy wrote:

Btw, Famspear how is that charge of misappropriation of client funds going for you? Would you like me to get on your level and continue with such statements?

Ha ha. Nice try, no cigar. Steve, I have not posted anything here in Quatloos that would indicate I keep a client trust account, or whether I’m even currently engaged in the practice of law. I have said that my occupation is “lawyer-CPA.” I could be practicing as a CPA (and CPAs don’t keep client funds), or I could be with a corporate law department (no client trust accounts there), or a non-profit, etc.

By contrast, you have made gazillions of posts that include the same kinds of tax protester arguments all of us here have read for years. The assumption that you have been absorbing tax protester literature is a pretty reasonable one, in my view.

SteveSy:

I have never claimed my arguments would win in court. In fact I will wholly agree it's almost a guaranteed loser. I will ask you this though, how many tort cases would be won if the company being sued got to appoint and pay the salary of the judge presiding over the case?

Well, Steve, from a legal standpoint you are then admitting that you are wrong about the law. The law is what the courts rule the law is. Admitting that your argument would lose in court is admitting that you are wrong about what the law is. That is how our legal system works.

And if you really believe that the reason that hundreds of Federal judges have rejected every single tax protester argument in open court is that the Federal income tax indirectly pays the judges’ salaries, there isn’t much hope for you. But then, you also have made the statement that you have the “right” to determine what the law is – so your laughable “judge’s salary” argument fits right in. At least you’re consistently wrong.

--Famspear

[SteveSy]

Steve, I am not trying to diminish your character. Think of this as “tough love.” I am trying to shake you up. You cited Brushaber for a tax protester argument. You would never have done that had you not gotten the idea from tax protester literature. Do you really think you’re fooling us?

Enough of this nonsense. Exactly what TP argument are you claiming I made? Was it that circuit courts can't read? Oooh you got me

SteveSy wrote:

Btw, Famspear how is that charge of misappropriation of client funds going for you? Would you like me to get on your level and continue with such statements?

Ha ha. Nice try, no cigar. Steve, I have not posted anything here in Quatloos that would indicate I keep a client trust account, or whether I’m even currently engaged in the practice of law. I have said that my occupation is “lawyer-CPA.” I could be practicing as a CPA (and CPAs don’t keep client funds), or I could be with a corporate law department (no client trust accounts there), or a non-profit, etc.

Went right over your head....whoosh

By contrast, you have made gazillions of posts that include the same kinds of tax protester arguments all of us here have read for years. The assumption that you have been absorbing tax protester literature is a pretty reasonable one, in my view.

Like what, that a tax on the earnings of an average worker is unconstitutional? You're a joke.....don't need to read TP material to arrive at that conclusion. You have yet to provide a single example of where I used "TP material". Give it up you're looking more pathetic by the post.

Try something new for a change; prove your point with facts and logic not parroting, name calling, and false accusations. Next you'll be attacking a misspelling of a word or my punctuation. You might even convince someone you're right instead of a wannabe guru.

SteveSy:

I have never claimed my arguments would win in court. In fact I will wholly agree it's almost a guaranteed loser. I will ask you this though, how many tort cases would be won if the company being sued got to appoint and pay the salary of the judge presiding over the case?

Well, Steve, from a legal standpoint you are then admitting that you are wrong about the law.

No I'm not.

The law is what the courts rule the law is.

No its not, courts do not have the power to make laws. That sir is only in the hands of the legislature.

Admitting that your argument would lose in court is admitting that you are wrong about what the law is. That is how our legal system works.

No, what is an admission though is that you can't think for yourself and must have someone think for you.

And if you really believe that the reason that hundreds of Federal judges have rejected every single tax protester argument in open court is that the Federal income tax indirectly pays the judges’ salaries, there isn’t much hope for you.

So then I take it you believe that the same amount of tort cases would be won if the companies being sued had the ability to appoint and pay for the judge presiding over the case? I'm sure PM would have had such a judge rule against them on the tobacco line of cases.....it's a conspiracy to thinkotherwise.

But then, you also have made the statement that you have the “right” to determine what the law is – so your laughable “judge’s salary” argument fits right in. At least you’re consistently wrong.

Everyone has that right....you're just too dense to realize it. Of course there is no guarantee someone arbitrating your matter will agree with you.