Nobody at losthorizons can answer a simple question

[Kestrel]

And then we have Louisiana, where everything is codified in the Napoleanic Code tradition instead common law. In light of the foregoing comments, that certainly explains a few things.

[LPC]

If I recall correctly, the conclusion was that the codification process would take up a huge amount of time, money and other resources; and since new common law is created on an ongoing basis, the waste of time would be even less desirable.

When areas of the common law are codified, there's almost always a declaration that the codification does not negate common law that is not inconsistent with the codification, so parts of the common law survive.

So for example, the Uniform Trust Code that was enacted in Pennsylvania includes a section that declares that:

The common law of trusts and principles of equity supplement this chapter, except to the extent modified by this chapter or another statute of this Commonwealth.

[Prof]

First, Louisiana. Louisiana has become homoginized. Case law plays a big part in its interpretation of the successor the the Code Napoleon. And, it has adopted many of the Uniform Statutes, such as all parts of the UCC (it finally incorporated Art. 9, after having used the Code Napoleon form, mortgage chattel previously.

Codification comes out the 19th law reform, and was designed to make the law more accessible and predictable and so that a business person could look up the law rather than reading the law.

Between the Uniform Commissioners and the American Law Institute, codification eventually swept through most areas of the law and by this century, state and federal codes are the arguably uniform norm, not the exception. See also the "codification" that occurs in the RESTATEMENTS, for example. In a State like Texas, there is little that has not been codified, from criminal law and procedure to insurance and tax, not to mention Trust, Probate, UCC, Business Organizations, and the like.

Of course, with the USC, there is little common law left in the federal system.

Unlike the rest of the world, excluding Canada and parts of the UK, case law plays a huge role in interpretation of the Codes. Traditionally, on the Continent, commentary by professors played the second largest role. That is, I read, changing, so that "leading opinions" are becoming more relevant.

The "common law" -- particularly the jury -- is really only "preserved" in the US and to a lesser extent, Canada. In England, the only civil juries are --IIRC--for libel and slander. There are no civil juries left in the rest of the Commonwealth or the UK ( except for Canada).

[LPC]

Does it [the 1939 Code] state that all "gains and profits" must be federally connected?

And I like the response:

Perhaps not in so many words.

That would be a "no."

At some point that can only be determined by you,

Yes, we all get to self-determine the meanings of statutes.

you may be satisfied by the preponderance of the evidence.

And we get to self-determine the meaning of statutes based on the lowest standard of evidence.

I guess you'll just have to keep looking until you convince yourself about it one way or the other. It's wise that you're questioning it: it's not good to accept something claimed to be so by someone else without verifying it to your own satisfaction.

Unless the "someone else" is Hendrickson.

And freeme responds:

I understand.

Perhaps Pete will provide something more definitive...

Perhaps he'll also sprout wings and fly to the moon.

[notorial dissent]

Perhaps he'll also sprout wings and fly to the moon.

All things considered, far more likely. Certainly than getting a sensible answer from anyone at Lost Hopes, Pete especially.

[Famspear]

Now, Blowhard Hendrickson responds to "freeme"'s request for statutory support for Blowhard's theory that for something to be "income" for federal income tax purposes, that "something" must be connected to an activity involving the exercise of a "federal privilege":

freeme, see http://losthorizons.com/Documents/AsLon ... ersist.pdf, and understand that a tax (fee) on an exercise of privilege can only be claimed by the one granting the privilege; or, to put it the other way, one can only charge for the exercise of one's own grant of privilege. (This is not to say that such authority couldn't be delegated, of course, but the object of the tax would still be confined to what could be legitimately taxed by the delgator [sic]-- that is, the exercise of a privilege the delegator had granted.)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 226#p29088

No, Blowhard, your answer is non-responsive.



What a surprise......

[Famspear]

And "freeme" responds with this:

Thank you again, ForumAdmin.

I understand that a tax (fee) on an exercise of privilege can be lawfully claimed by the one granting the privilege.

I am not so sure about the "only" part.

Does the federal government grant the privilege taxed by the United States federal excise tax on gasoline?

Again, I understand that a tax (fee) on an exercise of privilege can be lawfully claimed by the one granting the privilege, but in the case of federally connected interest and dividends, would it not also require a statute and a regulation?

freeme

(Underscoring in original)

[Paul]

freeme must have read the License Tax Cases. Or maybe he read the Obamacare case, where the court held that a tax on doing nothing is not a direct tax.

[Famspear]

freeme must have read the License Tax Cases. Or maybe he read the Obamacare case, where the court held that a tax on doing nothing is not a direct tax.

Yeah, poor Blowhard Hendrickson. Someone needs to remind him of some of the points made by the Supreme Court in explaining its holdings in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, no. 11-393; no. 11-398; no. 11-400 (slip opinion, U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2012):

1. The section 5000A penalty or “shared responsibility payment” may, for constitutional purposes, be considered a tax, not a penalty. (page 35 of the slip opinion).

2. Congress has the power to impose the section 5000A exaction under its taxing power, and section 5000A does not need to be read to do more than impose a tax. (page 39)

3. Under the Constitution, the 5000A exaction is not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States. (page 41; large font added)

Clue: Hey Blowhard, if it's not a direct tax, what is it? It's an indirect tax -- an excise!

4. The Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. (page 41)

5. The Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. (pages 41-42) The Constitution makes no such promise with respect to taxes. (page 42)

6. Upholding the section 5000A individual mandate under the Taxing Clause does not recognize any new federal power; upholding the mandate determines that Congress has used an existing federal power. (page 42)

7. “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty [under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code] for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized [for purposes of determining the requirement’s constitutionality] as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” (page 44; large font added)

Come on, Blowhard Hendrickson! Please explain to everyone how refusing or failing to obtain health insurance somehow constitutes an "activity" connected to the exercise of a "federal privilege".





What a loser......

[Famspear]

freeme, see http://losthorizons.com/Documents/AsLon ... ersist.pdf, and understand that a tax (fee) on an exercise of privilege can only be claimed by the one granting the privilege; or, to put it the other way, one can only charge for the exercise of one's own grant of privilege.....

In other words, under Blowhard Hendrickson's nonsensical theory, the federal government can impose an excise, an indirect tax, only for the exercise of the federal government's own grant of a privilege.

Remember the James Doctrine? Under that doctrine, as explained in a U.S. Supreme Court decision over fifty years ago, the receipt of money by an embezzler is included in the income of that embezzler under the Internal Revenue Code, even though the money does not belong to the embezzler, and even though he is required to return the money to its rightful owner. James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961).

Since amounts received in an embezzlement are included in the income of the embezzler, this must somehow mean -- under the Blowhard Theory -- that engaging in the illegal activity of embezzlement somehow involves the exercise of a "federal privilege." After all, the government can charge a tax (under the Blowhard Theory) only for the exercise of the government's own grant of a privilege.

[LPC]

a tax (fee) on an exercise of privilege can only be claimed by the one granting the privilege

Hendrickson is answering a question about his unsupported assertion (that income can't be taxed unless it is federally connected) with another unsupported assertion, which is that a government cannot impose a tax on anything but an exercise of a privilege by that same government.

Which is simply a restatement of the conclusion that is being questioned.

Or, as a law partner used to say, Hendrickson is simply putting the rabbit into the hat so that he can draw it out.

The fact that Hendrickson's statement is not supported by the words of the Constitution, legal precedent, statutory law, political history, economics, logic, or common sense is just icing on the cake.

[Cpt Banjo]

The fact that Hendrickson's statement is not supported by the words of the Constitution, legal precedent, statutory law, political history, economics, logic, or common sense is just icing on the cake.

Hendrickson's claim has been echoed by some numbnut named Ransom over at the LH asylum:
"It might help you to think about sovereignty, too, to understand why one entity can't tax privileges granted by another entity."
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 093#p29093

Not only is this claim unsuported by the law, it was specifically rejected over 100 years ago by the Supreme Court in a case where state-chartered corporations argued that the Corporatioon Excise Tax of 1909 couldn't be applied to them because they received their privilege from the state, not the federal government.

It is next contended that the attempted taxation is void because it levies a tax upon the exclusive right of a state to grant corporate franchises, because it taxes franchises which are the creation of the state in its sovereign right and authority. This proposition is rested upon the implied limitation upon the powers of national and state governments to take action which encroaches upon or cripples the exercise of the exclusive power of sovereignty in the other...

While the tax in this case, as we have construed the statute, is imposed upon the exercise of the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, as such business is done under authority of state franchises, it becomes necessary to consider in this connection the right of the Federal government to tax the activities of private corporations which arise from the exercise of franchises granted by the state in creating and conferring powers upon such corporations. We think it is the result of the cases heretofore decided in this court, that such business activities, though exercised because of state-created franchises, are not beyond the taxing power of the United States..

We therefore reach the conclusion that the mere fact that the business taxed is done in pursuance of authority granted by a state in the creation of private corporations does not exempt it from the exercise of Federal authority to levy excise taxes upon such privileges.
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 152-158 (1911)

[LPC]

Hendrickson's claim has been echoed by some numbnut named Ransom over at the LH asylum:
"It might help you to think about sovereignty, too, to understand why one entity can't tax privileges granted by another entity."
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 093#p29093

Not only is this claim unsuported by the law, it was specifically rejected over 100 years ago by the Supreme Court in a case where state-chartered corporations argued that the Corporatioon Excise Tax of 1909 couldn't be applied to them because they received their privilege from the state, not the federal government.

I was also looking at Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. recently, because Hendrickson cites it in what appears to be his most recent regurgitation, this one titled "As Long as Myths about the Income Tax Persist, the Misapplication of the Tax Will Continue." On page 5, he quotes the Stone Tracy decision as stating that "...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."

The quoted language doesn't appear in the opinion of the court, but in the syllabus. Even worse, as CB points out, the holding in the case actually refutes what Hendrickson claims, because it holds that the federal government can tax a "privilege" granted by a state.

Not that anyone at LH understands that or, if they understood it, would they care.

[notorial dissent]

So what you're saying is that wishing really really hard doesn't count?

[Famspear]

Speaking of Hendrickson's Hapless Heroes and simple questions, user "gdude", posting at the alternative web site for followers of Hendrickson, writes:

Does having a SS [social security] account make you a Corporation?

Is a U.S. individual a corporation?

What about the "LEGAL PERSON"?

...... it's enough to drive you mad.

http://www.codebusters.org/post1754.html#p1754

Uh, no "gdude." The fact that you believe that these are important, serious questions about federal income tax law is an indication that you're already mad. The madness came first -- the the stupid questions came afterward.

The fact that you don't know you're mad is part of your problem.

[.]

Oh, thank goodness.

For a moment there, after reading gdude's questions, I thought that I might have wasted many billable minutes of time over the years dealing with attorneys who filed many forms (with associated fees) with various Secretaries of State establishing various state-chartered corporate entities on my behalf. Some of them were even furran, if you know what I mean.

It turns out that I, as a proud possessor of a Social Security account number and being a U.S. individual "LEGAL PERSON" couldn't just declare that I was already a corporation. Who knew?

And a good thing, too. I'd have had to think up a name for myself.

[jcolvin2]

It turns out that I, as a proud possessor of a Social Security account number and being a U.S. individual "LEGAL PERSON" couldn't just declare that I was already a corporation. Who knew?

And a good thing, too. I'd have had to think up a name for myself.

You could just take your normal name and capitalize it (not sure how you capitalize a "."). Alternatively, you could throw in colons and words like "Family," and maybe a distinct font color. Maybe: .:FAMILY !, Inc.

[Quixote]

Another unanswerable question. How do you prove to a lender you have income when you've gone to so much trouble pretending you dont? Kris's sister in law apparently submitted their CTC educated return to their broker. Needless to say, they didn't get the loan.

How do CTC warriors purchase property?
The reason I ask this is my brother attempted to refi his house this month, and instead of listening to me, his wife went ahead and made the appt without allowing me anytime to get her 'acceptable' 1040's to submit to the underwriters.

Ransom responded to Kris's post:

Kris, Pete has something posted on this at http://losthorizons.com/tax/faq2.htm#Loans

I don't think Ransom read Pete's post. All it said was that some CTC worriers had reported that they had managed to convince lenders to ignore their CTC educated returns.

[JamesVincent]

Another unanswerable question. How do you prove to a lender you have income when you've gone to so much trouble pretending you dont? Kris's sister in law apparently submitted their CTC educated return to their broker. Needless to say, they didn't get the loan.

How do CTC warriors purchase property?
The reason I ask this is my brother attempted to refi his house this month, and instead of listening to me, his wife went ahead and made the appt without allowing me anytime to get her 'acceptable' 1040's to submit to the underwriters.

Ransom responded to Kris's post:

Kris, Pete has something posted on this at http://losthorizons.com/tax/faq2.htm#Loans

I don't think Ransom read Pete's post. All it said was that some CTC worriers had reported that they had managed to convince lenders to ignore their CTC educated returns.

Back in the day you could get a no-doc relatively easy if you knew some people. I don't think they hand them out easy anymore.

[Burnaby49]

Another unanswerable question. How do you prove to a lender you have income when you've gone to so much trouble pretending you dont? Kris's sister in law apparently submitted their CTC educated return to their broker. Needless to say, they didn't get the loan.

How do CTC warriors purchase property?
The reason I ask this is my brother attempted to refi his house this month, and instead of listening to me, his wife went ahead and made the appt without allowing me anytime to get her 'acceptable' 1040's to submit to the underwriters.

Ransom responded to Kris's post:

Kris, Pete has something posted on this at http://losthorizons.com/tax/faq2.htm#Loans

I don't think Ransom read Pete's post. All it said was that some CTC worriers had reported that they had managed to convince lenders to ignore their CTC educated returns.

Back in the day you could get a no-doc relatively easy if you knew some people. I don't think they hand them out easy anymore.

Since the 2007-2008 financial collapse, largely brought about by low requirement mortgages that helped fuel the US housing bubble, no-docs have been totally, completely, toxic. Never a problem here in Canada, we've never had the equivalent of no-docs. They put you through the wringer for mortgage approval here because the financial institutions that issue mortgages don't sell them elsewhere. If a mortgage goes bad the issuer is stuck with the consequences.