Nobody at losthorizons can answer a simple question

[Famspear]

....I only alleged that under US laws, my hypothetical Delaware corporation will be a foreign corporation and feds will direct its conduct as such. No overriding takes place, that is my whole point. YOU are implying that United States can override Delaware's prohibition that its corporate citizen domesticate in United States - something clearly and explicitly prohibited in Title 8 Subchapter XVI Section 390 by Delaware's language.

Wow, what a troll.

We explained this to you yesterday. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a Delaware corporation is not a "foreign corporation." The law has not changed since yesterday.

Yes, IF the laws of Delaware were contrary to the laws of the United States on this point (which they are not), the laws of the United States would be the law that would be followed -- not just by federal judges, but by STATE judges in Delaware in cases involving DELAWARE STATE LAW. THAT'S WHAT THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE MEANS.

Notice that I said "IF." The corporate laws of Delaware do not conflict with the U.S. tax code.

In other words, I allege that when my corporation enters Alabama it functions within its sovereignty as a foreign corporation. Same is true within United States jurisdiction and United States law - as is the case with other 49 jurisdictions as well.

No. See explanation above.

You can check their Corporate Code if you do not believe me.

No. See explanation above. Your ability to read and understand a state Corporate Code is obviously flawed.

One of your members also pointed out that a Tibetan monk can incur income and a liability on such income having NEVER SET FOOT on American soil.

That's correct. (I'm the one who pointed that out.)

You think it is a coincidence that more than half of Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware? Of everywhere in the world, like Nevada or Hong Kong, why Delaware?

No, it's not a "coincidence." And, no, it's not because of your goofy, nonsensical theories about how the law works, either. The fact that these corporations are incorporated in Delaware has nothing to do with your goofy, nonsensical idea.

I think you are onto something, the question is will you explore it and actually be willing to look at the evidence?

It's not a question of "evidence" and there's nothing to "explore." These are legal concepts, not factual concepts. And your approach is not the proper way to perform legal analysis.

Look, pal, this is the EASY part of law. Assuming that you actually believe what you are writing and are not simply a flat-out, full bore troll, you just aren't going to be able to master this topic using the methods you are using.

Are you inferring that Congress can legislate for foreign corporate citizens without a grant in the US Constitution on such matters and especially so when the chartering sovereignty would prohibit such conduct?

You keep pretending that you don't understand this stuff. CONGRESS HAS A GRANT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ON SUCH MATTERS -- FEDERAL TAXATION. Further, the Delaware corporation laws do not contradict federal tax law on this point. You are simply piling one idiotic, nonsensical pseudo-legal theory on top of another.

This would be where you tell me where in the US Constitution such a grant would exist or be implied....

U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 1; Sixteenth Amendment.

And the statute is Internal Revenue Code section 7701. Under section 7701(a)(4) and (a)(5), a Delaware corporation is a DOMESTIC corporation.

A determination of whether a corporation is DOMESTIC or FOREIGN for federal income tax purposes is a determination made under FEDERAL law, not Delaware law.

This is not rocket science, pal.

[Famspear]

Oh, and I've already explained that federal tax law is not contract law. Your bringing up the phoney "26 USC is contract law" nonsense again is not helping you.

[stija]

1 - This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yes. I never disagreed with this nor does my proposition disagree with this. You think it does because you think i am suggesting that such corporation is not subject to federal income taxes being a foreign corporation. You assume that because you do not understand 1. above which YOU wrote. Is legislation under 26USC territorial in nature or does it deal with subject matter of taxation? Think before speak, and you may answer your own question.

Plus, what does legislative authority for taxation have to do with changing the original citizenship of the corporation. Are you suggesting that 26USC cannot tax foreign corporations if they involve themselves with subjects taxable under 26USC?

We do not subscribe to the doctrine that if a corporation files its charter in one State, after having been first chartered in another State, and is sued by a citizen of the State in which it filed its charter, in the state courts of that State, the right of removal to the Federal courts will be denied, while at the same time if such a corporation is sued by a citizen of the State in which it filed its charter, in the United States courts, the jurisdiction of the United States courts will be sustained upon the ground that in the Federal courts the corporation is domestic in the State where it was originally created and where its original incorporators are citizens, and it will be conclusively presumed as a matter of law that they are citizens of the State originally chartering it. If there be jurisdiction in the United States courts in the latter case, on the ground that it is a corporation and citizen of the State in which it was created, that fact gives jurisdiction to the Federal court to remove the case from the state court when the corporation is sued by a citizen of the State in which it filed its charter, because such corporation is a citizen of another State, namely, the State in which it was originally created. The citizenship of the corporation is not changed because of the particular court in which the action is commenced. If it be a citizen of another State 339*339 in the one case, it is such citizen also in the other, and if the other party to the action be a citizen of a State other than the one which created the corporation the jurisdiction of the Federal courts exists, and the right of the corporation (upon complying with the statute) to remove the case from the state court when it is sued by a citizen of the State where its charter may have been subsequently filed, is granted by the laws of the United States.

We have read with respectful consideration the cases of Debnam v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 126 N.C. 831, and Layden v. Knights of Pythias &c., 128 N.C. 546, in which the Supreme Court of North Carolina comes to a different conclusion from that which we have reached in regard to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts in such a case as this, but we cannot concur in the doctrine of the Supreme Court of the State as announced in those cases. We feel bound by the decisions of this court upon that subject.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has come to the same conclusion that we reach in this case, having altered its holding in Mathis v. Railway Company, 53 S.C. 216, 257, after the decision of the James case, 161 U.S., supra. See, to that effect, Wilson v. Southern Railway &c., 36 S.E. Rep. 701.

In Walters v. Chicago &c. Railroad Company, 104 Fed. Rep. 377, the United States Circuit Court in Nebraska held, in accordance with the principles maintained in the James case, that the defendant, although made a domestic corporation of Nebraska, yet having in fact been originally created by the State of Illinois, was a citizen of that State. The motion to remand to the state court was therefore denied.

We are of opinion that the plaintiff in error was not a citizen of the State of North Carolina at the time it was sued by the defendant in error, so far as regards the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and that the order of removal made by the Circuit Court of the United States operated to withdraw from the state court the right to hear and determine the case.

Southern R. Co. v. Allison, 190 US 326 - Supreme Court 1903

I don't make these rules friend, i just follow them. Sadly, you professionals do not understand them and you assume that what i am saying, that the corporation is ALWAYS and ALWAYS will be domestic to Delaware or citizen of Delaware means that is not subject to taxation in 1:8:1 because it is foreign.

Yes, IF the laws of Delaware were contrary to the laws of the United States on this point (which they are not), the laws of the United States would be the law that would be followed -- not just by federal judges, but by STATE judges in Delaware in cases involving DELAWARE STATE LAW. THAT'S WHAT THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE MEANS.

Not even close. Pal.

Rules of Decisions Act is FEDERAL LAW pal, read it:

28 USC § 1652 - State laws as rules of decision
The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.

Also which is why Southern supra held that Federal court didn't have to right to remove that suit under its jurisdiction. Pal.

Please do not explain anything else to me pal. You have NO clue what you are saying. You are butchering the Supremacy clause and embarassing yourself.

In the meantime:

1. Between my first post and this one, on these issues, i have seen a lot of superfluous language, but NOT any legal evidence
2. I have provided you Delaware code
3. Multiple SCOTUS opinions

Do any of you mind TEACHING me and SHOWING me a decision or maybe explain how one sovereignty can change the original character of another sovereign's creation, especially when the other EXPLICITLY prohibits such change.

I NO care for your words, give me some legal evidence please. And no, Supremacy clause has nothing to do with changing corporate character, because for that to be true, there would have to be a grant of powers in the US Constitution dealing with corporate law - you know, all laws made in furtherance thereof....

Supremacy clause does matter on the subject of taxation. Again, I never said that a foreign corporation, such as the Tibetan monk, is completely outside of taxing authority under 26USC. You guys are assuming that just because of its foreign Delaware ORIGINAL character. That character will NEVER change, no matter how much you want it.

It also does not mean that if one makes a mistake and files a domestic form for a Delaware corporation that IRS will not accept it. Heck IRS accepted Hendrickson's bs. They also lost billions in Minnesota to illegals filing false forms.

[Pottapaug1938]

Yes, IF the laws of Delaware were contrary to the laws of the United States on this point (which they are not), the laws of the United States would be the law that would be followed -- not just by federal judges, but by STATE judges in Delaware in cases involving DELAWARE STATE LAW. THAT'S WHAT THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE MEANS.

Not even close. Pal.

Rules of Decisions Act is FEDERAL LAW pal, read it:

28 USC § 1652 - State laws as rules of decision
The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.

Also which is why Southern supra held that Federal court didn't have to right to remove that suit under its jurisdiction. Pal.

Please do not explain anything else to me pal. You have NO clue what you are saying. You are butchering the Supremacy clause and embarassing yourself.

Projecting a little, are we? The very quote which you give us undermined the core of your premise. Due to the Supremacy Clause, where the Constitution or an Act of Congress so require, the laws of the several states can indeed be disregarded.

May I suggest the Saving to Suitors forum to you? Your legal fantasies, and method of legal analysis (such as it is) is much better suited to its members. They don't allow dissenting voices there, so you will find its membership very congenial.

[stija]

Projecting a little, are we? The very quote which you give us undermined the core of your premise. Due to the Supremacy Clause, where the Constitution or an Act of Congress so require, the laws of the several states can indeed be disregarded.e]

Are you? Or did you PURPOSELY miss the red except?

[Duke2Earl]

In the meantime:

1. Between my first post and this one, on these issues, i have seen a lot of superfluous language, but NOT any legal evidence
2. I have provided you Delaware code
3. Multiple SCOTUS opinions

Yes, indeed.

Your pont Number 1 describes your posts accurately. Your point number 2 is totally irrelevant... Delaware Code is totally and completely beside the point in determining federal taxability. And indeed you have misread and misinterpreted numerous Supreme Court decisions. And once you wander off into nonsense discussions of sovereignty... well, then it is apparent that you have totally lost any semblance of sanity.

In short, seeing you and only you understand law and taxation, isn't it simply amazing that absolutely no one agrees with you? Isn't it amazing that people who have spent their lives studying law disagree with you? Isn't it amazing that people and businesses that have millions or billions of dollars at stake aren't beating a path to your door to bask in your wisdom and save incredibly huge sums of money. Why isn't it clear to everyone that you have discovered the holy grail of constitutional law and taxation and that everyone one else has missed it totally? Have much of an ego do you?

I think it's just about time for you to play your totally predictable troll game and declare victory over everyone here because we "couldn't" answer your nonsense questions and go crawl back into the hole from hence you came.

[stija]

@Duke the liar....

Your pont Number 1 describes your posts accurately. Your point number 2 is totally irrelevant... Delaware Code is totally and completely beside the point in determining federal taxability. And indeed you have misread and misinterpreted numerous Supreme Court decisions. And once you wander off into nonsense discussions of sovereignty... well, then it is apparent that you have totally lost any semblance of sanity.

Show me where i said, presumed, inferred, or suggested the above. Troll.

Are we confusing "corporate character" with "federal taxability" in spite of my explicit language in every post warning you not to? Those bold words above, being your words and your words only, shows how much of a presumptuous asshole you are.

Go ahead, show me where i said that a foreign corporate character determines taxability. Or should i show you how i explicitly said the exact opposite in each of my posts to prevent assholes like you from lying.

Supremacy clause does matter on the subject of taxation. Again, I never said that a foreign corporation, such as the Tibetan monk, is completely outside of taxing authority under 26USC. You guys are assuming that just because of its foreign Delaware ORIGINAL character. That character will NEVER change, no matter how much you want it.

And...

I don't make these rules friend, i just follow them. Sadly, you professionals do not understand them and you assume that what i am saying, that the corporation is ALWAYS and ALWAYS will be domestic to Delaware or citizen of Delaware means that is not subject to taxation in 1:8:1 because it is foreign.

That is just from my last post, which you supposedly read.

[Pottapaug1938]

Projecting a little, are we? The very quote which you give us undermined the core of your premise. Due to the Supremacy Clause, where the Constitution or an Act of Congress so require, the laws of the several states can indeed be disregarded.e]

Are you?

No, I'm not. YOU are.

Or did you PURPOSELY miss the red except?

No; in fact, it's the linchpin of my argument, and it undermines yours. If the Constitution, the treaties of the United States, and/or an Act of Congress say one thing, and "the laws of the several states" say another, the latter cannot serve as "rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply" because of the Supremacy Clause.

[stija]

If the Constitution, the treaties of the United States, and/or an Act of Congress say one thing, and "the laws of the several states" say another, the latter cannot serve as "rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply" because of the Supremacy Clause.

Absolutely.

Now are you suggesting that is in relation to every conflict or only those that involve federal law legislated in the furtherance of the federal powers in the US Constitution?

And are you possibly suggesting that ALL federal law is made in furtherance of the US Constitution and binding on the states?

[Pottapaug1938]

stija wrote "I NO care for your words, give me some legal evidence please. And no, Supremacy clause has nothing to do with changing corporate character, because for that to be true, there would have to be a grant of powers in the US Constitution dealing with corporate law - you know, all laws made in furtherance thereof...."

Once again, you introduce an irrelevancy. The Supremacy Clause had never been offered as a basis for "changing corporate character" -- except that if the laws of a state say something, about corporate character, which conflict with the US Constitution, treatiers of the US, or Actos of Congress, then those state laws are unconstitutional and cannot be legally enforced.

Just because the Constitution does not spell out, in exhaustive detail the constitutional rules for each and every situation (in this case, whether the Constitution can override a state's laws regarding corporations) does not mean that the Constitution cannot do so. That's what the Supremacy Clause means, among other things.

[stija]

Just because the Constitution does not spell out, in exhaustive detail the constitutional rules for each and every situation (in this case, whether the Constitution can override a state's laws regarding corporations) does not mean that the Constitution cannot do so. That's what the Supremacy Clause means, among other things

SCOUTS in Southern supra disagrees with you. I do too. Conclusion: your opinion does not matter.

Any case law even suggestive of what you are imagining?

Would you answer my two questions in my last post?

Now are you suggesting that is in relation to every conflict or only those that involve federal law legislated in the furtherance of the federal powers in the US Constitution?

And are you possibly suggesting that ALL federal law is made in furtherance of the US Constitution and binding on the states?

[Pottapaug1938]

If the Constitution, the treaties of the United States, and/or an Act of Congress say one thing, and "the laws of the several states" say another, the latter cannot serve as "rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply" because of the Supremacy Clause.

Absolutely.

Now are you suggesting that is in relation to every conflict or only those that involve federal law legislated in the furtherance of the federal powers in the US Constitution?

And are you possibly suggesting that ALL federal law is made in furtherance of the US Constitution and binding on the states?

You backed down pretty quickly there, my friend. As to your questions: if a state law conflicts with the US Constitution, a US treaty, or an Act of Congress, the state law is unconstitutional, barring 1) a constitutional amendment, 2) a new treaty, 3) a new Act of Congress, or 4) a Supreme Court decision holding that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional.

As for federal law: once again, you distort my position. Yes, all federal law is made in conformity with the provisions of the US Constitution; otherwise, it could not withstand a challenge in federal court. Thus, a federal law is binding on the states only if the Constitution so permits -- and in the case of state corporate law saying one thing, and federal law saying another, the Spremacy Clause resolves that conflict in favor of the federal law. Any law student, especially one who takes a Conflict of Laws class, could tell you the same thing.

And no: the SCOTUS did NOT agree with your contention in the Southern case. And, even if it did, the Supremacy Clause is too well established, in thousands of other cases, for such a case to be more than an anomaly.

[Duke2Earl]

Ahhh... "Corporate Character" who gives a flying whatever about corporate character? If it isn't ultimate taxability you are after then it might as well be "Cartoon Character." I am sure this means something to you in your fevered dreams. I am sure you wake in a haze of sweat in your eureka moments where you have solved the meaning of all law.

If you wanted anything like an honest discussion you would cut the crap. If you have a conclusion or a point... make it. This bull dung question and answer game you want to play is the last refuge of charlatans. Only those full of crapola want to play that sort of game. Honest people with a proposition set it out with their authority for all to see and discuss. If you think I am going to play your stupid deceitful game by the rules you think you have the right to dictate to us... well you know what they say about putting things where the sun don't shine.

Yes, you want to talk about "Corporate Character" and totally ignore...

"In short, seeing you and only you understand law and taxation, isn't it simply amazing that absolutely no one agrees with you? Isn't it amazing that people who have spent their lives studying law disagree with you? Isn't it amazing that people and businesses that have millions or billions of dollars at stake aren't beating a path to your door to bask in your wisdom and save incredibly huge sums of money. Why isn't it clear to everyone that you have discovered the holy grail of constitutional law and taxation and that everyone one else has missed it totally? Have much of an ego do you?"

Go away.

[stija]

If the Constitution, the treaties of the United States, and/or an Act of Congress say one thing, and "the laws of the several states" say another, the latter cannot serve as "rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply" because of the Supremacy Clause.

Absolutely.

Now are you suggesting that is in relation to every conflict or only those that involve federal law legislated in the furtherance of the federal powers in the US Constitution?

And are you possibly suggesting that ALL federal law is made in furtherance of the US Constitution and binding on the states?

You backed down pretty quickly there, my friend. As to your questions: if a state law conflicts with the US Constitution, a US treaty, or an Act of Congress, the state law is unconstitutional, barring 1) a constitutional amendment, 2) a new treaty, 3) a new Act of Congress, or 4) a Supreme Court decision holding that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional.

As for federal law: once again, you distort my position. Yes, all federal law is made in conformity with the provisions of the US Constitution; otherwise, it could not withstand a challenge in federal court. Thus, a federal law is binding on the states only if the Constitution so permits -- and in the case of state corporate law saying one thing, and federal law saying another, the Spremacy Clause resolves that conflict in favor of the federal law. Any law student, especially one who takes a Conflict of Laws class, could tell you the same thing.

And no: the SCOTUS did NOT agree with your contention in the Southern case. And, even if it did, the Supremacy Clause is too well established, in thousands of other cases, for such a case to be more than an anomaly.

Red is absolutely wrong above.
Blue is correct above.

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)

It is not even close to clear to you, or any of the other fools here. However, IT WAS CLEAR to the Supremes in 1821 and attorneys at the time.

This case was followed in Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, in which it was held that the jurisdiction of these territorial courts ceased upon the admission of Florida into the Union, Mr. Justice Nelson remarking of them (p. 242) that "they are not organized under the Constitution, nor subject to its complex distribution of the powers of government, as the organic law; but are the creations, exclusively, of the legislative department, and subject to its supervision and control.

"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and INDEPENDENTLY of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other NATIONS of the earth are accustomed to exercise."

Downes v. Bidwell 182 US 244

You do NOT understand the basic concept of US Constitutional grant of powers. Such powers are surrendered/granted by the state sovereignties to their federal gov't to be exercised for their interest only. Such powers have absolutely neither authority nor intent over what United States can legislate for itself or the rest of the world in relation to which it is not bound by the US Constitution. This is why a US Citizen caught outside the union CAN be labelled an enemy combatant, has no due process, and can be executed without a trial. Such United States legislation is completely legal, albeit amoral.

Your constitutional protections do NOT attach to your legal status (citizenship, residency, etc) but the land you inhabit - ie the union and only the union, not the territories or possessions or the rest of the world.

Still think that ALL US legislation is made in furtherance of the US Constitution and binding on the states?

My turn now. Can i see some case law supporting your nonsense? Or should i just disregard what SCOTUS says and every principle of American Jurisprudence and agree with you because you are some kind of a 'professional?'

You have no idea what i am talking about do you? Professional? You guys are only professionally confused.

[Pottapaug1938]

[As for federal law: once again, you distort my position. Yes, all federal law is made in conformity with the provisions of the US Constitution; otherwise, it could not withstand a challenge in federal court. Thus, a federal law is binding on the states only if the Constitution so permits -- and in the case of state corporate law saying one thing, and federal law saying another, the Spremacy Clause resolves that conflict in favor of the federal law. Any law student, especially one who takes a Conflict of Laws class, could tell you the same thing.

quote]
Red is absolutely wrong above.
Blue is correct above.

Wrong, and right.

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)

It is not even close to clear to you, or any of the other fools here.

Your case is not applicable to your point. The first species is a restatement of the effect of the Supremacy Clause; and the secind is irrelevant tot he discussion here. It's also a case which is 192 years old, so I would want to find its principles reaffirmed more recently before I quoted from it.

This case was followed in Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, in which it was held that the jurisdiction of these territorial courts ceased upon the admission of Florida into the Union, Mr. Justice Nelson remarking of them (p. 242) that "they are not organized under the Constitution, nor subject to its complex distribution of the powers of government, as the organic law; but are the creations, exclusively, of the legislative department, and subject to its supervision and control.

"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and INDEPENDENTLY of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other NATIONS of the earth are accustomed to exercise."

Downes v. Bidwell 182 US 244

Dicta, not holding; and out of context as well, since the issue was likely that of the quality of territorial government, not state government. You lose.

Your constitutional protections do NOT attach to your legal status (citizenship, residency, etc) but the land you inhabit - ie the union and only the union, not the territories or possessions or the rest of the world.

Still think that ALL US legislation is made in furtherance of the US Constitution and binding on the states?

My turn now. Can i see some case law supporting your nonsense? Or should i just disregard what SCOTUS says and every principle of American Jurisprudence and agree with you because you are some kind of a 'professional?'

Again, you want me to be your law professor; but I decline that honor. Go to any law school bookstore and buy a basic outline on Constitutional Law. It will be well worth the cost; and you will find your case law there. You might also weant to buy a book on how to analayze Court decisions, because you have repeately proven that you are unable to read a court decision, or understand the rules of American jurisprudence. Somehow, you have arrogated to yourself the ability to do both better than any of the professionals here, on Quatloos, who had made doing these things the centerpiece of their professional careers.

[stija]

Again, you want me to be your law professor; but I decline that honor. Go to any law school bookstore and buy a basic outline on Constitutional Law. It will be well worth the cost; and you will find your case law there. You might also weant to buy a book on how to analayze Court decisions, because you have repeately proven that you are unable to read a court decision, or understand the rules of American jurisprudence. Somehow, you have arrogated to yourself the ability to do both better than any of the professionals here, on Quatloos, who had made doing these things the centerpiece of their professional careers.

Nonsense. 1st Am political speech.

Dicta, not holding; and out of context as well, since the issue was likely that of the quality of territorial government, not state government. You lose.

No i don't. Domestic refers to domicile and domicile is a territorial component and not subject matter of taxation. You have NO CLUE. Stop embarassing yourself pro!

Furthermore gentlemen, if you do not read the opinions but just skim over the holdings, you get stupid like our friend above and you do not understand:
a) why the court held what it held
b) the principles behind it

Then you quote the holding and you have NO IDEA what it actually holds. Why you say? Because you haven't read the opinion EXPLAINING why. Why didn't you? Because you are a "professional" and you are LAZY.

Laziness leads to apathy. Apathy leads to slavery, i've skipped over a few steps.

Next? Case law, statutes maybe?

[Pottapaug1938]

Again, you want me to be your law professor; but I decline that honor. Go to any law school bookstore and buy a basic outline on Constitutional Law. It will be well worth the cost; and you will find your case law there. You might also weant to buy a book on how to analyze Court decisions, because you have repeatedly proven that you are unable to read a court decision, or understand the rules of American jurisprudence. Somehow, you have arrogated to yourself the ability to do both better than any of the professionals here, on Quatloos, who had made doing these things the centerpiece of their professional careers.

Nonsense. 1st Am political speech.

And your point is? You might try counteracting me with facts, not irrelevancies.
Next? Case law, statutes maybe?

Once again: if you bothered to read my last post, I told you where to find all of the case law that you would ever want. I'll even add that a law school textbook on Constitutional Law would be worth having, as well. I'm not going to waste my valuable time by trying to reinvent the legal wheel, without any research tools at hand, when the answers you seek are readily available elsewhere.

Unless you don't really want those answers, which I suspect may be true.

[stija]

Once again: if you bothered to read my last post, I told you where to find all of the case law that you would ever want. I'll even add that a law school textbook on Constitutional Law would be worth having, as well. I'm not going to waste my valuable time by trying to reinvent the legal wheel, without any research tools at hand, when the answers you seek are readily available elsewhere.

Unless you don't really want those answers, which I suspect may be true.

More nonsense from a pro. Political gibberish.

My mother always told me, son, if you have nothing important to say then don't.

Sad part is that a client of mine told me to come here because YOU guys know what you are talking about. I will have a chit chat with her when i see her again

Sheeple must be impressed with the sheer volume of the nonsense and gibberish you guys quote or spew and instead of ACTUALLY reading it, they skim over it and just read your holdings in the end and take them as gospel.

Holding: Laziness leads to slavery.
Principle/opinion: Liberty requires personal responsability and responsability requires effort. Effort requires sweat. He who does not sweat for his own rights and expects others to do it for him, will bear the chains of his masters (political rulers) around his neck voluntarily and uknowingly. May such chains rest upon your necks lightly. One will rule himself or be ruled by others - but he will ruled in order to function in a society of equals.

[Pottapaug1938]

Once again: if you bothered to read my last post, I told you where to find all of the case law that you would ever want. I'll even add that a law school textbook on Constitutional Law would be worth having, as well. I'm not going to waste my valuable time by trying to reinvent the legal wheel, without any research tools at hand, when the answers you seek are readily available elsewhere.

Unless you don't really want those answers, which I suspect may be true.

More nonsense from a pro. Political gibberish.

You're one to talk. At any rate, I'm tired of going around the mulberry bush with you. I've told you, repeatedly, where to find the answers you seek; but since you evidently are refusing to do so, and refuse to listen to the counsel of those such as wserra, LPC, Famspear and Prof, whose knowledge of the topics in this thread far exceeds my own, I have no confidence that you will abandon your fantasies and embark on this quest for answers.

[stija]

Once again: if you bothered to read my last post, I told you where to find all of the case law that you would ever want. I'll even add that a law school textbook on Constitutional Law would be worth having, as well. I'm not going to waste my valuable time by trying to reinvent the legal wheel, without any research tools at hand, when the answers you seek are readily available elsewhere.

Unless you don't really want those answers, which I suspect may be true.

More nonsense from a pro. Political gibberish.

You're one to talk. At any rate, I'm tired of going around the mulberry bush with you. I've told you, repeatedly, where to find the answers you seek; but since you evidently are refusing to do so, and refuse to listen to the counsel of those such as wserra, LPC, Famspear and Prof, whose knowledge of the topics in this thread far exceeds my own, I have no confidence that you will abandon your fantasies and embark on this quest for answers.

More gibberish.

In substance you said you have no knowledge and you're a tired old lazy man who tried skimming through the tax code on the subject of corporate citizenship and now retreats in light of allegedly more knowledgeable men who you are calling on to 'rule' on your beliefs. May wserra, LPC, Famspear, and Prof's chains bear lightly on your neck. I mean that, i never just talk or say stuff. If you are religious, you failed commandment no. 1.

LPC is still looking for the rules in re: to IID and its application. I am still waiting brother LPC. Anytime is a good time, unless you changed your stance and IID does not exist anymore?

My counsel are the 9 black robed legal priests sitting in the SCOTUS, their opinions being both:
a) free
b) legally binding

Furthermore pro, this conversation was between me and AndyK. He is welcome to chime back in so that we can continue on our journey through the tax code with my Delaware corp citizen and its business model.

Next time Pottapaug1938, before you speak think how much knowledge you have on a topic, because by your own admission you are FAR less knowledgeable than individuals you enlisted for your help, and if one is to assume that these individuals know the truth, than by your own admission you are FAR from the truth:

counsel of those...whose knowledge of the topics in this thread far exceeds my own...

You don't even understand what you are saying, how can anyone really expect you to understand statutory construction and interpretation OR fundamental principles of federalism, separation of powers and dual sovereignty. You're sad you lazy bum, and you know it, or so it seems from your own admissions.