Nobody at losthorizons can answer a simple question

[stija]

They even conclude as follows:

Because the federal imposition of a bond registration requirement on States does not violate the Tenth Amendment, and because a nondiscriminatory federal tax on the interest earned on state bonds does not violate the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, we uphold the constitutionality of § 310(b)(1), [Footnote 16] overrule the exceptions to the Special Master's Report, and approve his recommendation to enter judgment for the defendant.

They recognize the doctrine as existing. LPC would make you believe there is no such doctrine. You swallowed his BS. Bravo.

Wait...maybe the court is confused by something which does not exist and is not relevant which is why they use it in their conclusion right?

Idiots.

[Pottapaug1938]

You can go and do whatever you want. It changes not that he does not recognize that the SCOTUS opined that if there is an unconstitutional burden on the agency, the immunity is valid.

Like so many drive-by trolls on Quatloos, you are quote-mining again. Your quote is meaningless unless 1) it constitutes the HOLDING in a case (not a dictum) ands 2) has not been subsequently overrruled.

His case is irrelevant - so much for his lawyering skills.

Well, then, give us the citation of the Supreme Court case which overrruled the case he cited. Unless and until you can do that, his case stands as good law and relevant tot he question at hand.

You know nothing about me or what my profession is. I did not come here to boost my ego and self loathe. I came here to see what you guys know, and it is not much i can see that. A lot of gibberish and nonauthoritative opinions from members with 'professional degrees' who CHOOSE to disregard what the court clearly tells them.

Wrong again. When we want to find out what a statute means, we don't sit down and try to interpret it ourselves, using Internet sites for help. First and foremost, we look to established legal precedent; so contrary to what you fantasize, we look squarely at what the Court says before we say anything.

I'll go with LPC on this one.

I get the hierarchy now.

Again, you look foolish. I go with what LPC says, not because of some hierarchy which exists only in your mind; I do so because he has made his case, which you have not come close to making yours.

[Pottapaug1938]

They even conclude as follows:

Because the federal imposition of a bond registration requirement on States does not violate the Tenth Amendment, and because a nondiscriminatory federal tax on the interest earned on state bonds does not violate the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, we uphold the constitutionality of § 310(b)(1), [Footnote 16] overrule the exceptions to the Special Master's Report, and approve his recommendation to enter judgment for the defendant.

They recognize the doctrine as existing. LPC would make you believe there is no such doctrine. You swallowed his BS. Bravo.

Wait...maybe the court is confused by something which does not exist and is not relevant which is why they use it in their conclusion right?

Idiots.

Once again, you confuse a dictum in a court case with the holding. Even the dullest first year law student knows the difference.

[stija]

Again, you look foolish. I go with what LPC says, not because of some hierarchy which exists only in your mind; I do so because he has made his case, which you have not come close to making yours.

How do you figure? He referenced a case dealing with a federal corporation engaged in a commercial activity, which by the was immune to taxation. That has nothing to do with an executive agency of state government like a police agency for example.

Then he claims that there is no intergovernmental doctrine immunity, yet your reference to South Carolina case clearly shows that there is such a doctrine - see my previous post.

Are you high? Or are you a follower?

Once again, you confuse a dictum in a court case with the holding. Even the dullest first year law student knows the difference.

Seriously? You just made my ignore list too.

Let me get this straight guys:

1. lower district court case law dictum is ok to use as case law
2. supreme court case law dictum is not ok, but only if it contradicts YOUR holdings
3. case law dealing with matters not alleged does matter and is relevant
4. case law dealing with matters alleged does not matter and is irrelevant.

Please teach me the rules of these forums so that i can plead my case properly. Rules of Quatloos Losers Forums link maybe so i can read them?

US at least publishes their rules in Title 26 publicly for all to see - one would argue they play fair compared to this forum.

[Pottapaug1938]

Again, you look foolish. I go with what LPC says, not because of some hierarchy which exists only in your mind; I do so because he has made his case, which you have not come close to making yours.

How do you figure? He referenced a case dealing with a federal corporation engaged in a commercial activity, which by the was immune to taxation. That has nothing to do with an executive agency of state government like a police for example.

Well, then, please give us the case citation for the premise underlying this assertion.

Then he claims that there is no intergovernmental doctrine immunity, yet your reference to South Carolina case clearly shows that there is such a doctrine - see my previous post.

Are you high? Or are you a follower?

Once again, you confuse a dictum in a court case with the holding. Even the dullest first year law student knows the difference.

Seriously? You just made my ignore list too.

Coward. You can't beat me with facts, so you go for the la-la-la approach.

Let me get this straight guys:

1. lower district court case law dictum is ok to use as case law
2. supreme court case law dictum is not ok, but only if it contradicts YOUR holdings
3. case law dealing with matters not alleged does matter and is relevant
4. case law dealing with matters alleged does not matter and is irrelevant.

You seem to have a lot of trouble keeping things straight.

First: I have NEVER said that dictum is okay to use as case law, whether from a lower Court or the Supreme Court. At best, it serves to explain the HOLDING in the court's opinion.

Second: I don't know what you mean in your gibberish contained in # 3 and #4 above; and given the lack of factual content in your posts, I don't really care.

Please teach me the rules of these forums so that i can plead my case properly. Rules of Quatloos Losers Forums link maybe so i can read them?

One rule is: if you try to argue a legal point, know what the relevant court holdings are.

US at least publishes their rules in Title 26 publicly for all to see - one would argue they play fair compared to this forum.

Again: no serious legal scholar tries to reinvent the legal wheel by sitting down and trying to re-interpret a statute. He or she looks first to see how that stature has been tested in the courts; and the HOLDINGS in appellate cases which have not been overruled are the gold standard of statutory interpretation

[wserra]

The thoroughness with which the Court abandoned the burden theory
...
Subsequent cases have consistently reaffirmed the principle that a nondiscriminatory tax collected from private parties contracting with another government is constitutional even though part or all of the financial burden falls on the other government.

South Carolina did not incur a burden by using one bonds vs. the other. Same two prong test i quoted. Try again.

Don't have to. The Supreme Court said it doesn't matter. So long as the tax is non-discriminatory - that is, it doesn't favor one sovereign over the other - burden isn't an issue. This isn't in itself a major point. It just illustrates stija's willingness to simply ignore plain language.

Guys, you're dealing with the owner of the pet shop who sold the dead parrot here. It's resting, it moved, it's stunned, it's pining for the fjords - anything to avoid admitting it's dead.

[stija]

Again: no serious legal scholar tries to reinvent the legal wheel by sitting down and trying to re-interpret a statute. He or she looks first to see how that stature has been tested in the courts; and the HOLDINGS in appellate cases which have not been overruled are the gold standard of statutory interpretation

So a holding that a tax on bondholders, not States, is constitutional and does not violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine means that:

a) a tax on State agencies is constitutional also and does not violate the doctrine
b) there is no doctrine, even though they mention it in the holding.

IF that is your argument, you should REALLY read the holdings of the case then.

The thoroughness with which the Court abandoned the burden theory was demonstrated most emphatically when the Court upheld a state sales tax imposed on a Government contractor even though the financial burden of the tax was entirely passed on, through a cost-plus contract, to the Federal Government. Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1 (1941).

What part of the tax is imposed on the contractor did you not understand? Contractor is not the same as officer of a state. Contractors are private parties not occupying one of the three branch offices and this one upped his price and passed the burden onto the feds - smart guy.

What does that have to do with an executive state agency exercising its sovereign duties delegated from the people AND Title 26 imposing a clear financial burden DIRECTLY on the agency in matching their employees contributions and administering the tax?

[stija]

In sum, then, under current intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, the States can never tax the United States directly, but can tax any private parties with whom it does business, even though the financial burden falls on the United States, as long as the tax does not discriminate against the United States or those with whom it deals. See Washington, supra, at 460 U. S. 540; County of Fresno, supra, at 429 U. S. 460-463; City of Detroit, supra, at 355 U. S. 473; Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, supra, at 336 U. S. 359-364. A tax is considered to be directly on the Federal Government only
"when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities."
New Mexico, supra, at 455 U. S. 735. The rule with respect to state tax immunity is essentially the same, see, e.g., Graves, supra, at 306 U. S. 485; Mountain Producers Corp., supra, at 303 U. S. 386-387, except that at least some nondiscriminatory federal taxes can be collected directly from the States, even though a parallel state tax could not be collected directly from the Federal Government. [Footnote 14] See generally |485 U.S. 505fn11|n. 11, supra.

Why do you disregard that CLEAR language?

Title 26 provisions DIRECTLY lay a burden, substantial and monetary on state agencies and NOT just the employee/officer (not a private contractor).

"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence he agrees with" is what your signature should really say.

How about this one, am i a contractor of the state or an employee of the state if i am publicly employed with Alabama Attorney's General Office?

[Pottapaug1938]

In sum, then, under current intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, the States can never tax the United States directly, but can tax any private parties with whom it does business, even though the financial burden falls on the United States, as long as the tax does not discriminate against the United States or those with whom it deals. See Washington, supra, at 460 U. S. 540; County of Fresno, supra, at 429 U. S. 460-463; City of Detroit, supra, at 355 U. S. 473; Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, supra, at 336 U. S. 359-364. A tax is considered to be directly on the Federal Government only
"when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities."
New Mexico, supra, at 455 U. S. 735. The rule with respect to state tax immunity is essentially the same, see, e.g., Graves, supra, at 306 U. S. 485; Mountain Producers Corp., supra, at 303 U. S. 386-387, except that at least some nondiscriminatory federal taxes can be collected directly from the States, even though a parallel state tax could not be collected directly from the Federal Government. [Footnote 14] See generally |485 U.S. 505fn11|n. 11, supra.

Why do you disregard that CLEAR language?

You're one to talk about disregarding clear language! You've certainly had enough presented to you. The answer is evident: you think that you are smarter than all of the legal and tax experts on Quatloos -- and yet you seem to think that quote-mining is the key to legal analysis.

Title 26 provisions DIRECTLY lay a burden, substantial and monetary on state agencies and NOT just the employee/officer (not a private contractor).

"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence he agrees with" is what your signature should really say.

How about this one, am i a contractor of the state or an employee of the state if i am publicly employed with Alabama Attorney's General Office?

Why should I care? Your tax liability is still the same.

Please wake me when you have something worthwhile to say.

[stija]

I have no tax liability. Never have, never will. I don't play income tax games. You should not either, especially since you do not FULLY understand the rules.

So in the end your argument is that you do not care. I agree 100%, which is why you have a liability. Freedom requires personal responsability. Personal responsability is somewhat equivalent to caring, at least in my ESL English. You don't care, therefore you pay.

[Cpt Banjo]

Are you ever gonna have a rational discussion with me or are you going to make stuff up like Famspear?

It's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who's dumber than a box of rocks and who can't distinguish between (a) the burden of higher taxes on the holder of a nonexempt municipal bond and (b) the burden on the issuer of a nonexempt bond who has to offer a higher interest rate.

the owners of state bonds have no constitutional entitlement not to pay taxes on income they earn from state bonds, and States have no constitutional entitlement to issue bonds paying lower interest rates than other issuers. South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 527 (1987)

No, I don't deny the existence of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, but it's clear to all but the most obtuse (that's you, sport), that it doesn't apply to the federal taxation of the income of State employees. Sure, the State has to withhold and report, but this raises no constitutional problem.

Any federal regulation demands compliance. That a State wishing to engage in certain activity must take administrative and sometimes legislative action to comply with federal standards regulating that activity is a commonplace that presents no constitutional defect. After Garcia, for example, several States and municipalities had to take administrative and legislative action to alter the employment practices or raise the funds necessary to comply with the wage and overtime provisions of the Federal Labor Standards Act. Baker, 485 U.S. at 543

[stija]

No, I don't deny the existence of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, but it's clear to all but the most obtuse (that's you, sport), that it doesn't apply to the federal taxation of the income of State employees. Sure, the State has to withhold and report, but this raises no constitutional problem.

It's clear? No problem? It is clear that it does not apply in following instances:

a) employee of a federal corporation for commercial purposes
b) contractor of the federal gov't or corp
c) any other instance where the burden is insignificant and where the tax is not DIRECTLY levied on the agency.
d) in a, b, and c, the gov't instrumentalities WERE immune, but not the private parties on whom the burden SQUARELY falls.

Therefore, if Title 26 imposed a burden on state employees ONLY, and an insignificant burden of lets say reporting ONLY by the states, you may be correct. But that is not the case with Title 26. It imposes a clear and direct burden on every employer, which a state agency would be. You forget to mention that states have to pay about 10% of their operating salaries in just existing and functioning as a gov't. Where in ANY of the cases we quoted so far is there a monetary burden DIRECTLY levied on the states or feds by the other?

In sum, then, under current intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, the States can never tax the United States directly, but can tax any private

It's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who's dumber than a box of rocks and who can't distinguish between (a) the burden of higher taxes on the holder of a nonexempt municipal bond and (b) the burden on the issuer of a nonexempt bond who has to offer a higher interest rate.

Now we are equating a bondholder with an officer of a state? Officer of a state occupies public office, an inherent discharge of state rights. Are we confusing a business venture with gov't duties/rights?

I am dumber than you because i can read and i know that Title 26 would directly require States to spend upwards of 10% of their salaries if it were interpreted the way you argue. Or are you arguing that there is no direct requirement on states through Title 26 in regards to income taxation of its employees?? If that is the case, then you may know something i do not. Please teach me.

Calling me names will not change the fact that your arguments are not fully accurate or that any of you provided evidence that a direct tax levied on one gov't agency by the other gov't would not be barred by intergovernmental immunity doctrine.

At least we have recognized it exists so far, thank you for that. Now, since it exists, when do you suggest it applies then?

[Pottapaug1938]

I am dumber than you because i can read and i know that Title 26 would directly require States to spend upwards of 10% of their salaries if it were interpreted the way you argue. Or are you arguing that there is no direct requirement on states through Title 26 in regards to income taxation of its employees?? If that is the case, then you may know something i do not. Please teach me.

No; I'd rather be taught. Please offer at least one unreversed appellate court HOLDING -- not a dictum -- which directly supports your contention.

[LPC]

Faced with clear evidence that he is wrong about the law, in the form of unambiguous Supreme Court opinions, stija seems to have retreated into vague incoherence.

He's just throwing words against the wall, hoping something will stick.

[stija]

Faced with clear evidence that he is wrong about the law, in the form of unambiguous Supreme Court opinions, stija seems to have retreated into vague incoherence.

He's just throwing words against the wall, hoping something will stick.

Evidence? Hardly. Beliefs, lots of them.

Fact remains, my executive agency made the same mistake of misapprehension i did. I hope IRS does not find out

[LPC]

They even conclude as follows:

Because the federal imposition of a bond registration requirement on States does not violate the Tenth Amendment, and because a nondiscriminatory federal tax on the interest earned on state bonds does not violate the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, we uphold the constitutionality of § 310(b)(1), [Footnote 16] overrule the exceptions to the Special Master's Report, and approve his recommendation to enter judgment for the defendant.

They recognize the doctrine as existing. LPC would make you believe there is no such doctrine.

Liar. I never said any such thing.

[Pottapaug1938]

Faced with clear evidence that he is wrong about the law, in the form of unambiguous Supreme Court opinions, stija seems to have retreated into vague incoherence.

He's just throwing words against the wall, hoping something will stick.

Evidence? Hardly. Beliefs, lots of them.

Well, then: provide some solid evidence that his beliefs are wrong, in the form of unreversed appellate court holdings. This is your chance to shut us all up for good; so we're calling your hand.

[stija]

Liar. I never said any such thing.

Ok. I'll take you up on it.

If it exists, when does it apply according to you?

Or are you suggesting that it exists, but it never applies?

[Cpt Banjo]

Where in ANY of the cases we quoted so far is there a monetary burden DIRECTLY levied on the states or feds by the other?

The Garcia case mentioned in the Baker opinion, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985). That case upheld the extension of the minimum wage and overtime provisions to the public transportation agency owned and operated by the city of San Antonio. If Congress can require a State or a subdivision of a State to pay higher wages, it can certainly require the payment of the employer's share of the Medicare tax.

[stija]

The Garcia case mentioned in the Baker opinion, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985). That case upheld the extension of the minimum wage and overtime provisions to the public transportation agency owned and operated by the city of San Antonio. If Congress can require a State or a subdivision of a State to pay higher wages, it can certainly require the payment of the employer's share of the Medicare tax.

Good effort, we seem to be getting somewhere.

However, i would suggest you talk with Famspear as he can explain the difference between regulation and taxation. The authority for legislation under one is not the same for the other. Right Famspear?? You taught me good, now's the time to chime in and explain and teach him too!

In case he does not chime in, what Congress can regulate it does not necessarily follow that it can tax to - and viceversa. Although i argued, that taxation implicitly or indirectly involves regulation. He dissented on the last issue.

Try again, if you wish. Hint: it is easier to find out the principles based on which the immunity applies.

In the present cases, a Federal District Court concluded that municipal ownership and operation of a mass-transit system is a traditional governmental function and thus, under National League of Cities, is exempt from the obligations imposed by the FLSA. Faced with the identical question, three Federal Courts of Appeals and one state appellate court have reached the opposite conclusion.[1]

Our examination of this "function" standard applied in these and other cases over the last eight years now persuades us that the attempt to draw the boundaries of state regulatory immunity in terms of "traditional governmental function" is not only unworkable but is also inconsistent with established principles of federalism and, indeed, with those very federalism principles on which National League of Cities purported to rest. That case, accordingly, is overruled.

The above quote hints to when the immunity would apply. That was the sole purpose of the quote, to give you a hint, not to prove anything else.

Alternatively, we can just wait for LPC to explain when it actually applies. He seems the big the bro with the big balls around here.