Nobody at losthorizons can answer a simple question

[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.[/quote]
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...

[/quote]

Once again, you completely misrepresent and distort what I've said. I have neither "skimm[ed] through the tax code nor "retreat[ed] in light of allegedly more knowledgeable men." I have studied the tax code extensively (I now work int he field of financial services, where tax questions frequently arise), and I refer you to others because their knowledge, and their ability to perform legal research, will yield you answers more quickly than I can; but I will waste no time explaining further because I don't expect anything different from you. Pointing out the errors in your latest post will only confuse you and give you further grist for your mill of dilettante legal fantasy.

[stija]

Let me get this straight Pottapaug1938....

1. You said that there are individuals whose knowledge FAR exceeds your own on this topic.
2. I will assume that those individuals know the truth, since they are your idols and know far more than you.
3. If my assumption is correct, and they know the truth, then your knowledge is FAR from theirs, which is allegedly the truth, by your own admission.
4. And if one assumes that they are far from the truth, then you are still ALOT FARTHER, by your own admission to be lacking in knowledge FAR behind them.

Where is my logic above flawed?
Why are you attempting to discuss something you allege you know NOT MUCH about really?

So far, if i understand correctly, the rules of these forums evade:
a) constitutional jurisprudence
b) logic

What is this? Is this a religious forum?

[Cpt Banjo]

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?

I highlighted the clear language that you disregarded.

The Court has never said that a tax collected directly from a State is invalid because of IID. In addition, it has abandoned the essential governmental/business distinction in applying IID, so your attempt to distinguish the Bessemer City case fails. See footnote 14 in the above passage from Baker:

fn 14 All federal activities are immune from direct state taxation, see Graves, 306 U.S., at 477, but at least some state activities have always been subject to direct federal taxation. For a time, only the States' governmental, as opposed to proprietary, activities enjoyed tax immunity, see e. g., Helvering v. Powers, 293 U.S. 214, 227 (1934); South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 454-463 (1905), but this distinction was subsequently abandoned as untenable by all eight Justices participating in New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572 (1946). See id., at 579-581, 583 (opinion of Frankfurter, J., joined by Rutledge, J.); id., at 586 (Stone, C. J., concurring, joined by Reed, Murphy, and Burton, JJ.); id., at 591 (Douglas, J., dissenting, joined by Black, J.).

So it's not enough that a tax is imposed on a State in connection with its essential governmental functions or that it imposes a burden. That's why the only way for you to show that such a tax is unconstitutional is to come up with a case that so holds, and there aren't any.

In any event, even if such a tax were invalid, all it would mean is that the State wouldn't have to pay the employer's share of the applicable employment taxes; it would not affect in the least the liability of the employee to pay income and employment taxes on his wages.

As far as your delving into the issue of corporate citizenship is concerned, it's merely a typical tactic of tax deniers: when you've been proven wrong, change the subject.

[stija]

fn 14 All federal activities are immune from direct state taxation, see Graves, 306 U.S., at 477, but at least some state activities have always been subject to direct federal taxation. For a time, only the States' governmental, as opposed to proprietary, activities enjoyed tax immunity, see e. g., Helvering v. Powers, 293 U.S. 214, 227 (1934); South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 454-463 (1905), but this distinction was subsequently abandoned as untenable by all eight Justices participating in New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572 (1946). See id., at 579-581, 583 (opinion of Frankfurter, J., joined by Rutledge, J.); id., at 586 (Stone, C. J., concurring, joined by Reed, Murphy, and Burton, JJ.); id., at 591 (Douglas, J., dissenting, joined by Black, J.).

I swear to God you read whatever you want to read brother Capt.

1. The court is saying that a distinction was abandoned.
2. What distinction are they talking about?
3. The distinction between governmental and proprietary activities.
4. New York governmental activity was bottling water.
5. Is bottling water an essential New York function?
6. No. Any individual of common right can enter the bottling water business/activity and be subject to the tax.
7. To not tax New York bottling water activity is to discriminate. (distinction/discrimination abandoned in New York by all 8 black robed priests, and rightly so)
8. A tax is nondiscriminatory in itself.
9. Bottling water, issuing bonds, etc, are commercial enterprises which ARE proper subjects of taxation.

What about that confuses or eludes you?
Or is it that you are trying to curve fit an opinion that does NOT deal with an ESSENTIAL function but instead deals with an activity subject to Congress taxation power IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Try again please.

[Cpt Banjo]

7. To not tax New York bottling water activity is to discriminate.
8. A tax is nondiscriminatory in itself.

You really don't have a clue, do you? When the Court speaks of a nondiscriminatory tax in the context of IID, it's referring to one that doesn't discriminate against a State. The failure to tax NY's water endeavors wouldn't do so.

Taxes discriminate all the time. For example, just look at all of the exempt wages for purpose of FICA taxes set forth in Code Sections 3121(a) and the exempt employments under Section 3121(b) (especially subparagraph (7)).

Keep it up -- with each post you merely demonstrate how unbelievably ignorant you are.

[stija]

You really don't have a clue, do you? When the Court speaks of a nondiscriminatory tax in the context of IID, it's referring to one that doesn't discriminate against a State. The failure to tax NY's water endeavors wouldn't do so.

1. Discriminate means recognize a distinction, or a difference.
2. Court abandoned this distinction between gov't business activities and proprietary activities. See your quote.
3. Therefore, the activities are on equal footing.
4. Tax is laid on activity, not gov't or private individual.
5. You are wrong.

The failure to tax NY water bottling business is to make a distinction between New York bottling business and my private bottling business. I would file suit in a heartbeat and win.

The court NEVER talks about a nondiscriminatory tax in the context of IID because IID does NOT apply to enterprises involving activities of common right. The court points, as you aptly try pointing out to me, that the IID does NOT apply in this case.

YOU, not me, don't have a clue brother. Let me show you..

Taxes discriminate all the time. For example, just look at all of the exempt wages for purpose of FICA taxes set forth in Code Sections 3121(a) and the exempt employments under Section 3121(b) (especially subparagraph (7)).

1. Do all individuals that satisfy that requirement get the same treatment under the Code?
2. Yes.
3. No discrimination.

Discrimination is in reference to a special class of people. By your logic graduated income tax discriminates then right? I pay more than your or viceversa? Not so because all individuals of a class of individuals that make 50k a year are entitled to the SAME and EQUAL treatment under the code.

You guys have no clue whatsoever.

[Pottapaug1938]

Let me get this straight Pottapaug1938....

1. You said that there are individuals whose knowledge FAR exceeds your own on this topic.
2. I will assume that those individuals know the truth, since they are your idols and know far more than you.
3. If my assumption is correct, and they know the truth, then your knowledge is FAR from theirs, which is allegedly the truth, by your own admission.
4. And if one assumes that they are far from the truth, then you are still ALOT FARTHER, by your own admission to be lacking in knowledge FAR behind them.

Where is my logic above flawed?
Why are you attempting to discuss something you allege you know NOT MUCH about really?

So far, if i understand correctly, the rules of these forums evade:
a) constitutional jurisprudence
b) logic

What is this? Is this a religious forum?

I'm not going to answer your idiocy because 1) you continually misrepresent, distort and fail to understand what I say; 2) you make assumptions based not on the facts before you, but on your own preconceived notions; 3) your anxiousness to dismiss, or excuse away, the statements of anyone with expertise on the issues raised by you exhibits a colossal arrogance and an unwarranted certitude in the infallible correctness of your opinions, and 4) you seem unable to comprehend what is presented to you.

[stija]

I'm not going to answer your idiocy

Yet you do....

because 1) you continually misrepresent, distort and fail to understand what I say; 2) you make assumptions based not on the facts before you, but on your own preconceived notions; 3) your anxiousness to dismiss, or excuse away, the statements of anyone with expertise on the issues raised by you exhibits a colossal arrogance and an unwarranted certitude in the infallible correctness of your opinions, and 4) you seem unable to comprehend what is presented to you.

The only idiot is you brother. Stop talking, you are smarter when you are quiet.

I was informed that policies of this forum prohibit non factual and non evidenced based posts. Please refrain from posting garbage no one solicited.

[stija]

@Capt,

Discrimination is differential treatment for a same class of individuals.

1. Essential governmental functions, not taxable under IID.
2. Business endeavours of common right such as bottling water, or issuing bonds, is taxable.
3. South Carolina, New York chose to participate in 2.
4. To not tax their business endeavours is to discriminate against all others similarly situated.
5. SCOTUS abandoned the distinction because it would result in discriminatory behavior in re: to same activities.

Does that make sense? If not, what step do i lose you on?

[Famspear]

.....I was informed that policies of this forum prohibit non factual and non evidenced based posts......

If that were enforced with consistent severity, very little of your posts would be allowed here.

So, it might not be wise for you to mention that "policy."

[stija]

.....I was informed that policies of this forum prohibit non factual and non evidenced based posts......

If that were enforced with consistent severity, very little of your posts would be allowed here.

So, it might not be wise for you to mention that "policy."

Ask The Observer.

Or are you suggesting he made it up? He did not respond after i asked him where these policies were so that i could read them. Hmmm......someone's twisting the truth again, either you or him. He did delete the posts though, i can't find them.

Btw, you know what else is wise? Accepting the truth instead of protecting a false held belief.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

said a man who was murdered for speaking the truth...

[Famspear]

Btw, you know what else is wise? Accepting the truth instead of protecting a false held belief.

TROGLODYTAM MISERABILIS
NEMO TOLLIT TE SERIO

[Quixote]

I am really impressed by the patience some of you have displayed. I quit reading the troll's posts in full many posts back. Delaware corporation law? Seriously?

[Cpt Banjo]

1. Essential governmental functions, not taxable under IID. Wrong, as the Massachusetts case points out. Whether you call it a tax or a user fee, the fact ramins that not all monetary impositions upon essential government functions are prohibited by IID.

4. To not tax their business endeavours is to discriminate against all others similarly situated. True, but that doesn't make the failure to tax illegal or entitle the other similarly-situated persons to not have to pay the tax. "If Congress desires, it may of course leave untaxed enterprises pursued by States for the public good while it taxes like enterprises organized for private ends. Cf. Springfield Gas Co. v. City of Springfield, 257 U.S. 66 , 42 S.Ct. 24; University of Illinois v. United States, supra, 289 U.S. at 57, 53 S.Ct. 509; Puget Sound Co. v. City of Seattle, 291 U.S. 619 , 54 S.Ct. 542." New York v. United States, 326 U.S. at 582 (1946) [Note: in the Puget Sound case, the Court upheld a tax on a private power company that competed against a city-owned power company, even though the latter didn't have to pay the tax]

5. SCOTUS abandoned the distinction because it would result in discriminatory behavior in re: to same activities. No, it abandoned it because it didn't work as a legal test in determining the application of IID. "To rest the federal taxing power on what is 'normally' conducted by private enterprise in contradiction to the 'usual' governmental functions is too shifting a basis for determining constitutional power and too entangled in expediency to serve as a dependable legal criterion. The essential nature of the problem cannot be hidden by an attempt to separate manifestations of indivisible governmental powers." New York v. United States, 326 U.S. at 580 (1946).

[stija]

1. Essential governmental functions, not taxable under IID. Wrong, as the Massachusetts case points out. Whether you call it a tax or a user fee, the fact ramins that not all monetary impositions upon essential government functions are prohibited by IID.

4. To not tax their business endeavours is to discriminate against all others similarly situated. True, but that doesn't make the failure to tax illegal or entitle the other similarly-situated persons to not have to pay the tax. "If Congress desires, it may of course leave untaxed enterprises pursued by States for the public good while it taxes like enterprises organized for private ends. Cf. Springfield Gas Co. v. City of Springfield, 257 U.S. 66 , 42 S.Ct. 24; University of Illinois v. United States, supra, 289 U.S. at 57, 53 S.Ct. 509; Puget Sound Co. v. City of Seattle, 291 U.S. 619 , 54 S.Ct. 542." New York v. United States, 326 U.S. at 582 (1946) [Note: in the Puget Sound case, the Court upheld a tax on a private power company that competed against a city-owned power company, even though the latter didn't have to pay the tax]

This distinction rule of gov't power company vs. private power company was later overruled. See your previous post where you tried using it against me without understanding what was overruled.

5. SCOTUS abandoned the distinction because it would result in discriminatory behavior in re: to same activities. No, it abandoned it because it didn't work as a legal test in determining the application of IID. "To rest the federal taxing power on what is 'normally' conducted by private enterprise in contradiction to the 'usual' governmental functions is too shifting a basis for determining constitutional power and too entangled in expediency to serve as a dependable legal criterion. The essential nature of the problem cannot be hidden by an attempt to separate manifestations of indivisible governmental powers." New York v. United States, 326 U.S. at 580 (1946).

1. Are you stupid?
2. Massachussets was a case involving a user fee for a federal privilege. Read the first holding in re: "class of special beneficiaries of a federal program"
3. New York was a case in re: bottling water.
4. What eludes you?
5. Which of those cases involved an executive, legislative, or judicial gov't function?
6. Are you comparing bottling water and special federal privilege to an essential executive, legislative, or judicial power?

At least someone's sweating. Capt may regain his liberty if he keeps following the crumbs....

@Capt, your interest in proving me wrong is one of pride and ego self-protection. Abandon your preconcieved notions of what YOU think the Supremes are telling you and THEN read what they are telling you.

Your interest in this should be truth and justice first and foremost. If you're not after that than your efforts are futile and will fall short.

When this Court came to sustain the federal taxing power upon a transportation system operated by a State, it did so in ways familiar in developing the law from precedent to precedent. It edged away from reliance on a sharp distinction between the "governmental" and the "trading" activities of a State, by denying immunity from federal taxation to a State when it
"is undertaking a business enterprise of a sort that is normally within the reach of the federal taxing power and is distinct from the usual governmental functions that are immune from federal taxation in order to safeguard the necessary independence of the state."
Helvering v. Powers, supra, at 293 U. S. 227. But this likewise does not furnish a satisfactory guide for dealing with such a practical problem as the constitutional power of the United States over State activities. To rest the federal taxing power on what is "normally" conducted by private enterprise in contradiction to the "usual" governmental functions is too shifting a basis for determining constitutional power, and too entangled in expediency to serve as a dependable legal criterion. The essential nature of the problem cannot be hidden by an attempt to separate manifestations of indivisible governmental powers. See Wambaugh, Present Scope of Government (1897) 20 A.B.A.Rep. 307; Frankfurter, The Public and its Government (1930).

What you had bolded was court's dicta explaining why they don't fully accept what happened in Helvering which is what i bolded. In other words, they are saying that they don't EXCLUSIVELY agree with the rationale 'government' vs 'business' criterion. Keep reading the case......

[Cpt Banjo]

This distinction rule of gov't power company vs. private power company was later overruled. See your previous post where you tried using it against me without understanding what was overruled.

As usual, you completely miss the point. The case had nothing to do with IID and everything to do with the private company's claim that it was a denial of equal protection to tax it while its competitor was not taxed. You made a similar claim earlier: "The failure to tax NY water bottling business is to make a distinction between New York bottling business and my private bottling business. I would file suit in a heartbeat and win." No, you wouldn't; you would lose big time.

You can take your ignorant and illogical delusions and go play in the traffic. I'm tired of feeding the troll.

[stija]

As usual, you completely miss the point. The case had nothing to do with IID and everything to do with the private company's claim that it was a denial of equal protection to tax it while its competitor was not taxed. You made a similar claim earlier: "The failure to tax NY water bottling business is to make a distinction between New York bottling business and my private bottling business. I would file suit in a heartbeat and win." No, you wouldn't; you would lose big time.

1. I apologize, see 2.
2. I assumed we were discussing federal income taxation, but change of game, see 7.
3. Puget case involves a city tax.
4. Distinction between 'governmental' v. 'proprietary' activities was later dropped, see your own quote above.
5. Outcome may be different today without the distinction of 'govt' v. 'prop' activities as the only rule.
6. I think you missed the game - name of game federal income taxes.
7. Change of game requires fair notice.

Don't get mad brother. You are trying to discredit me by jumping into equal protection and discrimination now - by any means necessary huh? Keep in mind i am not the enemy. Your enemy is within.

But fair game, just did not know that was the case which is why i assumed what i did about Puget.

[rogfulton]

I am really impressed by the patience some of you have displayed. I quit reading the troll's posts in full many posts back. Delaware corporation law? Seriously?

I wish I had said it myself. Wouldn't have been as good, but still...

[stija]

I'd prefer factual evidence and case law to patience.....

@Capt, don't give up brother. The more SCOTUS opinions you read the easier and clearer it gets. If you are after the truth, you need to be prepared for the possibility, however remote it may be, that you may be wrong on certain matters.

If you do not concede that you may be wrong, then there is no point in reading any case law at all, because then you are not reading with doubt in mind, but simply re-affirming your beliefs and skimming over what you think is "superfluous" language.

I concede that i could be wrong on the IID, which is why i challenge you to find one case where an officer or employee of a state branch agency challenged and lost under the IID.

Having said that, i doubt that i am wrong, because the above proposition would imply, in its simplest and barest form, that one sovereign can tax another sovereign's rights to exist and perform its functions as entrusted and granted to it by its governing sovereignty -- the inhabitants of such government's territorial limits.

I concede that i could be wrong on a lot of things. So show me......and remember, it wasn't the fact that the world was round that bothered people, it was the fact that it wasn't as they believed.

[stija]

And as far as my Delaware corporate law.....

Verizon is inc in Delaware. See how much federal taxes they pay.
Pfizer is inc in Delaware. See how much federal taxes they pay.
Google is inc in Delaware. See how much federal taxes they pay.
Apple is inc in Delaware. See how much federal taxes they pay.
I can keep going, but what's the purpose right. You won't believe it if it hit you in the face. Maybe if someone can show how they filed - foreign or domestic

As far as SCOTUS case law why corporate law dictates the character of the corporation, there is plentyyyy out there.

You are the only ones missing out guys. Check their tax record. Verizon makes billions and gets federal income refunds

It just goes to show you who writes these laws, behind the scenes albeit.

I'm out quatlosers. You can't play the game of income taxes without learning the rules first. Playing with you was like playing ball with a retarded kid who THINKS he knows the rules.