Nobody at losthorizons can answer a simple question

[Famspear]

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.

The rules? Still trying to convince yourself that that the Delaware corporation law determines the definition of "foreign corporation" for FEDERAL TAX PURPOSES???



Yeah, Stija, if I were you, I'd skee-daddle, too!

Everybody, read the other thread, where Stija illustrates his keen knowledge of the basics of "excises" by citing Sims v. Ahrens for principles of Federal excises when the case is an Arkansas court case interpreting Arkansas law -- and then when told that it's an Arkansas case, claims that it's OK because the principles of excise law are "the same". Of course, in Sims v. Ahrens, the court stated exactly the OPPOSITE OF the FEDERAL RULE regarding excises. The federal rule is that activities as of "common right" may be the subject of a Federal excise, whereas the Arkansas court stated that Arkansas CANNOT tax activites in connection with a "common right."

DUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH.......

[Famspear]

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.

Yeah, that's what I thought, Einstein.

Next time, before trying to play "legal scholar" with the big boys and girls, go get your legal education somewhere other than Eddie's Internet School of Tax Protesters.

Before you play the game of income tax expert, LEARN THE RULES FIRST, kid.

I wonder how "Stija" should be pronounced?

"STIH-jah", maybe???

A Limerick To Stija:

There once was a blowhard named Stija
Who could arrogate, b*llsh*t, and kid ya.
Now he's startin' to pout;
'Cause he's clueless, no doubt.
Did you think you was smart? Come on! Did ya?

[Famspear]

Multiple choice.

Stija's real life training and credentials for his play-pretend game of legal philosopher and tax law expert involved:

A. Video arcade management.

B. Apartment complex maintenance.

C. Pool cleaning.

D. Living in momma's basement.

E. Something else equally as important.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm not going to answer your idiocy

Yet you do....

But I didn't, just now, did I? I thought not.

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, you aren't just pegging the irony meter, you're spinning the needle on the chutzpah meter like a propeller. Now, no doubt, you are busy strutting round on the tax denier circle-jerk forums, bragging about how you went on Quatloos and posed tough questions that no one was willing or able to answer.



To paraphrase and old proverb: I'll keep quiet about you, and let you think that I'm an idiot, while you keep opening your mouth and remove all doubt about yourself.

[Duke2Earl]

The same as always. They come in, post up a storm, and never even state what their position is. Then they claim victory and leave. And their alleged victory is we couldn't "answer their questions." I'm sick of it. I am tired of letting them set the rules. They ask nonsense questions and when we show that the questions are stupid, they flit from question to question. This one came in about questions of intergovernmental immunity doctrine. When that didn't work, he abandoned that and allegedly wanted to address excises. And his alleged support was the minority opinion to a State court case. And when that was pointed out... now he wants to leave ... because we couldn't answer his questions. I think we ought to totally ignore them unless and until they state what the hell stupid ignorant position they are trying to support... with this one I doubt we will ever know.

[Famspear]

Stija, our latest village idiot, wrote:

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......

Yeah, absolutely, you dimwit.

Let's take Apple as an example.

According to its audited financial statements filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Apple incurred federal income tax (based on the current, non-deferred portion of federal income tax expense) of approximately $7.24 billion for the fiscal year ended in September 2012, $3.884 billion for the fiscal year ended in September 2011, and $2.15 billion for the fiscal year ended in September 2010. That's not even TOTAL federal income tax expense for the years in question-- that's just the current portion of income tax expense (I'm simplifying here, since most people are not familiar with the Financial Accounting Standards Board rules on deferred taxes). Now for complicated reasons, these figures are not precisely the same as the figures for income tax "paid" during each applicable year; for example, some of the expense can reflect payments made after the close of the tax year. But for our purposes, clearly Apple PAYS billions in federal income tax every year.

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

YOU check their tax record, bozo.

I GET A TAX REFUND TOO, BOZO. THAT DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T OWE AND PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX.



Getting a tax refund doesn't mean you pay and owe "no" federal income tax. What planet are you visiting us from?



The mass media is partly to blame for this misconception that people have about big companies not paying federal income tax. There certainly are examples where big companies have no federal income tax liability for a given year, and where they obtain refunds based on carrybacks of net operating losses (NOLs).

[The Observer]

The real question to ask stija, of course, is whether he has had any success in the courts with his line of argument. Since he is so sure of his theory/theories, I would be interested to see how many times he has taken the government to task over its tax laws - and won. Heck, I would be interested to see how many times he has gone to court with his argument and lost.

[LPC]

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?

You don't seem to have figured it out yet, so I'll explain it to you:

1. I am under no obligation to educate you.

2. I am under no obligation to answer your questions.

3. When you say something that is wrong, I may cite the statutes, Supreme Court decisions, or other authorities that show you that you are wrong.

4. I am not obligated to show you that you are wrong every time that you are wrong, and you can't assume you are right just because I don't show you that you are wrong, but I am allowed to show you that you are wrong when you're wrong.

5. After I show you that you are wrong, I am still not obligated to educate you or answer your questions.

6. For similar reasons, I don't respond to private messages from idiots.

7. Your saying you want to learn does not make it so.

8. General propositions do not decide concrete cases. Abstract discussions of "excise" or "inter-governmental immunity" usually have nothing to do with whether or not a tax applies to a factual situation.

9. This forum is about taxes, and the federal income tax in particular. Discussions of federal powers or immunities other than tax powers or immunities do not interest me.

[Gregg]

This may be somewhat off topic, but indulge me.

To our latest Village Idiot, I have a question for you. Being new, I may have to provide some background. On a few occasions on this and other like forums, the question is posed to people like you, "If your ideas have any merit, why do Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc... pay income tax. Surely they would be paying high priced talent to not pay at all if it were true as you say that income tax is only for (insert hare brained theory here)?"

I don't know what Bill Gates or any other billionaire pays in tax. Some have argued that they only pay to help cover up the vast tax conspiracy because they're too high profile to not pay, whatever.

I do know what I pay in income tax. Quite a bit, actually. And I have oft said that if ANYONE would have the inside knowledge to avoid taxes, I'd be that guy. I'm not often called stupid, I'm very well educated in Business, I have been fortunate enough to have been very well paid by my employers (non federally connected ones at that), I had a business that made me a bit of money and when I sold it made me, well, modestly wealthy. I have connections in high places both in the Federal Government and in Ohio. And again, it's not Bill Gates we're talking about here, but in fact a class of people MUCH more significant, there are only a few billionaires out there, but there are at least hundreds of thousands of people like me, the 1% crowd alone is by definition 3.6 million of us. And I'd venture a guess that collectively we make a bigger contribution than Bill and Warren.

So tell me, why do I pay income tax? I certainly don't want to, I pay a substantial sum every year to pay as little as possible, and still pay 6 figures most years, I have paid over $1M in a single year before, and logically I'd pay that amount minus one dollar to avoid it.

SO why do I pay it at all?

[stija]

So tell me, why do I pay income tax? I certainly don't want to, I pay a substantial sum every year to pay as little as possible, and still pay 6 figures most years, I have paid over $1M in a single year before, and logically I'd pay that amount minus one dollar to avoid it.

SO why do I pay it at all?

Because you 'know' you have to.

You guys are really brave. No posts for hours while i expected an answer. LPC, how's that IID rule coming? IID no exist no more? Change your mind again?

Then i say "i am out" and within ~45min there are 7+ posts of gibberish and slander. THAT is the reason why you pay. Lick the hand that 'protects' you and don't complain. Follow the 'rules' like everyone else

Someone asked why Bill Gates and Buffett pay taxes. What do you know what they pay? Buffett by his own admission said he pays less than his secretary, and i believe him because he pays none. He has attorneys who know the rules of Title 26. Yet the guy portrays himself as altruistic and 'wanting' to pay more. When he got slapped with a $650mil IRS bill, did he pay? He sued. Follow the suit, if they don't keep the proceedings 'secret.' Watch, 50$ says its neither gonna be public nor published.

It was Buffet's chance to put his money where his mouth is. What happened? What's 650mil to him? Is all of their (Gates and his) money in a non-profit to help humanity or for other more selfish reasons?

On top of that i never said that incorporating in Delaware makes the corp not liable. WHOEVER assumed this does not understand how the code works. The tax is levied on the activity and measured by the income. Thus, it matters not where you are incorporated or who you are, but what you INVOLVE yourself in under the Code. Brushaber was a nonresident, yet his income from a domestic corporation was taxable, was it not? You have no clue.

Good luck to you guys. You can't see the truth unless you are willing to concede, as a remote possibility, that you may be wrong on some issues. Your ego won't LET you see the truth. At one time i 'had' to pay to.

Pottapaug1938, i have never met (online) a person who eats so much of his own BS and keeps asking for more. You ADMITTED your knowledge is FAR from more 'distinguished' members, yet you keep arguing. If LPC is the TRUTH, and let's assume he is, YOU ARE FAR FROM THE TRUTH and you admitted it. So piss off from a topic you admittedly have no clue in, and don't procreate please.

[Pottapaug1938]

Pottapaug1938, i have never met (online) a person who eats so much of his own BS and keeps asking for more. You ADMITTED your knowledge is FAR from more 'distinguished' members, yet you keep arguing. If LPC is the TRUTH, and let's assume he is, YOU ARE FAR FROM THE TRUTH and you admitted it. So piss off from a topic you admittedly have no clue in, and don't procreate please.

Stija, I have never met anyone who is as much of a hypocrite as you. You accuse me of lyying, yet I count three blatant lies in just this post, without even trying.

As for procreation: I have a son and a daughter, both of whom are cum laude college graduates. As for "pissing off": if you want me off of this topic, then provide the proof I have asked for and I will be glad to do so.

[Prof]

Like my friend Pottapaug1938, I am not primarily a tax lawyer; I try bankruptcy cases. I frequently litigate with the IRS, but am not a tax specialist.

Of course, as a trial lawyer, I have found that knowledge of both law and fact is important.

To quote our new visitor:

Someone asked why Bill Gates and Buffett pay taxes. What do you know what they pay? Buffett by his own admission said he pays less than his secretary, and i believe him because he pays none. He has attorneys who know the rules of Title 26

Several factual statements are made. First is the statement that Buffet has admitted to paying more in taxes than his secretary. This is not true. Buffet has stated that his secretary pays taxes at a higher rate than is applied to his income. See here: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/ec ... index.html Buffet, and Gates, both have large tax bills, irrespective of their wise and knowledgable lawyers and tax advisors/professionals. His tax return is discussed here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecul ... ax-return/

So, while I may not be familiar with the intricate, non-bankruptcy tax issues discussed on this forum, I can research to determine the truth of facts asserted.

I also do not understand your earlier reference to state of incorporation (e.g., Delaware) and the applicability of the federal income tax rules to corporate profits? Elsewhere, you reference "involvement," but I did not understand.

Corporations (or all but a very few) are creatures of state law. However, corporate income is taxed by both state law and federal law (or not taxed, as the case may be).

You have not let me know how, in your theories, these two are "merged" so that it is important to Amazaon's tax bill -- federal tax bill -- to be incorporated in Delaware. (I understand why many business entities decide to incoporate in Delaware. I was not aware that there are federal tax advantages.) Could you educate me?

These should be taken as legitimate questions/responses.

Can you respond?

[stija]

Pottapaug1938, i have never met (online) a person who eats so much of his own BS and keeps asking for more. You ADMITTED your knowledge is FAR from more 'distinguished' members, yet you keep arguing. If LPC is the TRUTH, and let's assume he is, YOU ARE FAR FROM THE TRUTH and you admitted it. So piss off from a topic you admittedly have no clue in, and don't procreate please.

Stija, I have never met anyone who is as much of a hypocrite as you. You accuse me of lyying, yet I count three blatant lies in just this post, without even trying.

I accused you of lying??? Where? Show me.

Is this a joke? How can you guys take anything he says for real?

AndyK said:

With respect to your "rule" #2: The only instances where an Appellate court of Supreme Court decision is available are when a specific issue has been litigated to either of those levels and (in the case of the Supreme Court) has been selected for argument before the Court.

So, if a particular, significant section of 26USC has never been challenged and litigated to either of those levels, no opinion will exist.

For example, if no one has ever argued that their interpretation of MARRIED (and the tax effects) differs from the government's position, no opinion will exist. However, that does NOT mean that the Government's position is incorrect.

Thus i cannot provide something which has not been litigated. Swallow some of that. It's funny how rules keep changing:

a) in relation to my arguments only
b) to protect a strong held personal religious belief

You must be proud of your kids. Why don't you tell me more? Maybe it is somehow relevant to our tax discussion.

[webhick]

This thread has been locked because some of you think that juvenile behavior is an appropriate response to trollish behavior. It is not. You are welcome to start a new thread, but the name calling, the taunting, etc. will not be allowed.

And stija, please stop calling people "Brother." You're doing it as a reference to your religion insult earlier in the thread and along with all insults will no longer be tolerated.