Stija on Stija

[stija]

EDITED: Added clarifying language to avoid further confusion or avoidance in answering the SIMPLE question.

A distinguished member of Quatloos and myself agreed in another topic that Intergovernmental Immunity Doctrine ('IID') exists in relation to taxation of states and United States.

LPC has since remained silent on the rule(s) of when IID actually applies. LPC did rule out almost all the instances when it does not apply, thank you for that research.

However the question remains: When does IID apply in re: to income taxation by the United States of the states, their agencies, and instrumentalities thereof and extends to the officers and employees.

Please refrain from clogging this topic with matters not relevant to IID and also do not post if your knowledge is far from that of LPC on this topic only.

[wserra]

However the question remains: When does IID apply?

Already answered. As I wrote, you just don't like the answer.

And didn't you write:

In the interest of the truth and more important matters, since not everyone works for state branches, i am willing to concede that there is no IID, never was never existed, whatever you want. It is irrelevant.

Why should we go on and on about something irrelevant?

[LPC]

And didn't you write:

In the interest of the truth and more important matters, since not everyone works for state branches, i am willing to concede that there is no IID, never was never existed, whatever you want. It is irrelevant.

Why should we go on and on about something irrelevant?

More important: Why has he gone on and one about something that he himself concedes is irrelevant?

[stija]

@wserra,

Already answered. As I wrote, you just don't like the answer.

1. All three of your answers deal with states taxing United States - quite irrelevant to the main implication of my question in regards to income taxes, see 2.
2. Stay on the implied topic of income taxation.
3. Are you inferring that there is no reciprocity?
4. 1. and 2. deal with discriminatory behavior by the states.
5. Not one of your answers deals with income taxation, which was the implied topic.
6. I am assuming that you read some of the discussion in the other topic before you posted.
7. If you did not, and you usually just post, please do not post again in this topic.
8. Otherwise, in the context of states taxing feds i agree with all 3 of your propositions 100%.
9. I allege that because of reciprocity, and dicta in New York, and Graves v. New York, and many other SCOTUS decisions, it is easy to infer that your 3. answer applies the IID also when United States tax states while discharging an essential gov't function only.

@LPC,

More important: Why has he gone on and one about something that he himself concedes is irrelevant?

1. Relevance of that post to this discussion?
2. Did you fail to read or purposely skip over the part where i asked nicely not to clog my topic with useless gibberish.
3. Are you trying to instigate something?
4. Why don't you be a man and tell us when you think it applies in re: income taxation of states essential functions.
5. Do not post again if you aren't willing to attempt to answer 4.
6. I conceded a point which was NOT relevant to the topic of "no one at losthorizons can answer a simple question."
7. Read the topic of this thread please.
8. Are you implying that you believe my false agreement that there is no IID when you there is?
9. Or are you implying that there is no IID now?
10. If you answered 9 in the affirmative, wserra just proved it exists.
11. Thanks wserra.
12. You can't avoid the truth LPC.

Thanks.

[stija]

Can anyone at Quatloos answer the two following questions:

1. Can United States create a trade or business within the states in order to tax it?
2. What are the determining factors that trigger a W-2 form reporting under Title 26 in re: to most private sector employees?

Please avoid posting and gibberish, clutter, or what i refer to personal and political beliefs in this thread. If you think you know how to answer those two simple questions, please do, that is why i posted them, but no instigation or references to matters not relevant to this thread.

Thanks.

[grixit]

I am not a lawyer, a tax professional, a banker, or a government employee. I'm a freelance computer troubleshooter. More free than lance lately, i'm afraid, i've got to get out of pcs and into smartphones and tablets. Point is, i'm a layperson, so i don't have any fancy words to confuse you with.

So here goes:

1. Federal taxes, income or otherwise, are imposed by Congress. The Constitution says it has that power, and the 16th Amendment says that in the case of income taxes, they do not have to be apportioned. Direct or indirect is irrelevent, Congress is allowed. And it does.

2. Congress could start from zero, and add in specifically enumerated categories and say those are taxable. It did not. There is no "only federally connected activities" in the laws.

3. Congress could start from universal, and carve out enumerated categories and say that those are not taxable. And that's what it did. It taxes all income under federal authority. That's the 50 states, DC, the territories, embassies, citizens in other countries, and those machines on Mars. The federal government is not foreign to any of them.

4. Definition of income: they paid you. Definition of taxable income: they paid you for something you did in the US or they paid you and you are a US citizen. Hence the income of an american or a tibetan are both taxable when earned in American. And hence the income of an american earned in Tibet is taxable, while the income of a tibetan in Tibet is not.

5. Having declared all income taxable, Congress has the power to make exceptions and categories.

If Congress wanted to exempt members of the Big Old Congregation of Fake Indians of West Tennessee, it could. But it didn't.

If Congress wanted to exempt people who lie on the floor kicking their feet and wailing that they are not corporate fictions, it could. But it didn't.

If Congress wanted to exempt income earned from being the employee of a state government, it could, You seem to think it did, people whose opinions i have more confidence in say it didn't. But either way, that is an exception to a general rule of universal taxation, not an example of a piece of a built up tax structure to be incluided or left out.

If Congress wanted to divide income into brackets and set the rates in a regressive sequence it could. But it didn't, it set them in a progressive sequence. Furthermore, it has changed those rates and brackets several times.

If Congress wanted to let people make deductions from income for housing, education, dependents and so forth, before determining their taxes, it could and it did.

If Congress wanted to let people make deductions from income for underwear, tattoos, garden gnomes, and so forth, before determining their taxes, it could but it didn't.

If Congress wanted to make the cost of commercial advertising deductable, it could and it did. If Congress wanted to make the cost of personal advertising deductable, it could, but it didn't.

If Congress wanted to tax capital gains, the source of income for Warren Buffet and many others, at a lower rate than that applied to wages, the source of income for his secretary and a whole lot of others, it could, and it did.

6. The IRS does not impose income tax, it collects it. Part of the collection process is the use of forms to help keep track of ammounts. But there is no law specifying the forms. On the other hand, the IRS is allowed to use its own discretion when a taxpayer either does not file or files in an unconventional manner. That's where the "substitute for return" comes in.

7. Judges do not impose income tax, they decide whether or not some action is in comformance with the law. So for instance, if someone claims they don't have to pay because they sent in a "Declaration of Alienism" which they filled in with red ink, and spelt their name with a colon, a Prince symbol and two squashed bugs while wearing purple paisley boxer shorts on their head, it is up to the judge to say if there is a law that confirms this. There isn't, and the judge always says so, sometime with a sanction.

Are there problems with this? Sure. Are there abuses? No doubt. Are there unreasonable and biased people working there? Yes, the organization is full of human beings. Is the IRS an unaccountable, brutally repressive monster? We know it can be. However, as the current scandal shows, it is not immune to corrective measures. And, in the end, this does not invalidate the law, or excuse anyone from owing taxes.

So, that's my take. I hope i was coherent.

[LPC]

In the thread now locked, stija branched out into some new areas of misinformation, one involving the Brushaber decision.

Brushaber was a nonresident, yet his income from a domestic corporation was taxable, was it not?

Brushaber's income was never discussed in, and was irrelevant to, the Brushaber decision. The issue before the Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), was whether the federal income tax was constitutional as applied to the Union Pacific Railroad, a corporation of which Frank R. Brushaber was a stockholder.

This is clear from the first sentence of the opinion:

As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913 (§ II., c. 16, 38 Stat. 166).

And the first sentence of the second paragraph of the opinion:

The right to prevent the corporation from returning and paying the tax was based upon many averments as to the repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States, ...

[LPC]

However the question remains: When does IID apply in re: to income taxation by the United States of the states, their agencies, and instrumentalities thereof and extends to the officers and employees.

Already answered.

[stija]

I am not a lawyer, a tax professional, a banker, or a government employee. I'm a freelance computer troubleshooter. More free than lance lately, i'm afraid, i've got to get out of pcs and into smartphones and tablets. Point is, i'm a layperson, so i don't have any fancy words to confuse you with.

1. I care not who you are or what you do.
2. Under law and constitution we are all equal - lay or professional same rules apply - therefore it is irrelevant.
3. You are wrong on many things that i don't care to discuss here because they don't apply to IID.
4. Congress was not given any powers by the 16th.
5. Congress never could and never will have to power to tax the states in exercising their inherent rights to exist: executive, legislative and judicial powers.
6. You are assuming powers that Congress never had.
7. Congress undoubtedly has exclusive powers to collect federal income taxes from taxable incomes throughout the world.

[stija]

However the question remains: When does IID apply in re: to income taxation by the United States of the states, their agencies, and instrumentalities thereof and extends to the officers and employees.

Already answered.

1. So if a tax imposes an undue and unconstitutional burden on the state, agency or instrumentality thereof, IID applies and extends to both the employee/officer and the state and bars federal income taxation.
2. Stija agrees 100% with 1.
3. Thanks LPC.

Topic closed.

[Famspear]

...However the question remains: When does IID apply in re: to income taxation by the United States of the states, their agencies, and instrumentalities thereof and extends to the officers and employees.

No, the question does not remain. The question has been answered.

Stija, you created this thread with the title "Can Quatloos answer a simple question".

The answer is: Yes. The Quatloos regulars have answered your question -- as poorly worded as it is.

I will again answer with what I believe is responsive to what you really mean by your question: Under the American legal system, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine does not limit the scope of the U.S. federal income tax as imposed on an individual by reason of that individual being an officer or employee of any governmental entity, unit, agency, department, corporation etc., etc., by whatever name used, whether federal, state, local or otherwise.

You have been trying to impose demands on others here. Now, I am going to start making demands of my own:

Do not ask me for any more citations to authority.

Do not assert that your question has not been properly answered.

Do not argue with me.

Do not contradict me.

I've had fun exposing your nonsense, as have others here. However, as far as I am concerned, if you want to continue to post at Quatloos, you need to stop pestering others about a topic (the intergovernmental immunity doctrine) that has been explained to you -- with far more patience and detail than you deserve, considering your attitude.

Move on to a new subject.

If you don't want to comply, I will recommend that the Powers That Be here take action that you will not like.

[stija]

1. Stija agrees 100%.
2. Stija misspoke.
3. Stija has all court records and pleadings from Brushaber from SDNY, Appellate, and SCOTUS.
4. Important thing from case is Brushaber labeled nonresident by T.D. 2313.
5. Brushaber lost because Union Pacific RR was chartered through an Act of Congress and not in Utah as Brushaber alleged.
6. Utah charter applied only in actions against it in Utah.
7. In federal court original domestic character revealed unbeknownst to Brushaber.
8. If Union Pacific RR were chartered in Utah originally, Brushaber would have won.

[LPC]

1. Can United States create a trade or business within the states in order to tax it?

Can the United States tax itself, by imposing a tax on a trade or business it owns? Yeah, I suppose so, but it seems pointless. Why would the US collect a tax of 35% of its income when it already owns 100% of the income (and will continue to own the remaining 65% even after payment of the tax)?

2. What are the determining factors that trigger a W-2 form reporting under Title 26 in re: to most private sector employees?

The actual (or, in some cases, potential) withholding of federal income, social security, or Medicare taxes.

From the instructions to Form W-2:

Every employer engaged in a trade or business who pays remuneration, including
noncash payments of $600 or more for the year (all amounts if any income, social security, or Medicare tax was withheld) for services performed by an employee must file a Form W-2 for each employee (even if the employee is related to the employer) from whom:

* Income, social security, or Medicare tax was withheld.

* Income tax would have been withheld if the employee had claimed no more than one withholding allowance or had not claimed exemption from withholding on Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate.

[LPC]

1. So if a tax imposes an undue and unconstitutional burden on the state, agency or instrumentality thereof, IID applies and extends to both the employee/officer and the state and bars federal income taxation.

I didn't say that, and the case I cited didn't say that.

You're just making stuff up.

[stija]

1. I don't know, ask them.
2. Information from W-2 is not the law; what does the law say?
3. Try answering the questions.
4. Question one was "Can United States create a trade or business within the states to tax it?"
5. Question was not "Why would United States tax itself?"
6. If you want to ask questions create your own topic.
7. Anyone know the answers?
8. Stija believes them to be simple straightforward questions.
9. Stija promises it is not a trick.

[stija]

@LPC,

1. You are right, it does not say that, it infers it.
2. I said it, didn't I.
3. How come you can read now but not when you accuse me of saying something i did not say?

@Famspear,

1. Stija cares not about your political babble.
2. 1st Amendment political speech prohibited here, said the admin who locked the other topic.

[Famspear]

And, as I recall, the old "Brushaber was a non-resident" rhetoric is based on tax protesters' misinterpretation of a Treasury pronouncement some time after the Brushaber decision was rendered, where the pronouncement dealt with some rule about non-residents or non-citizens in some way and included a citation to the Brushaber case for a specific legal point. I don't have the information in front of me right now, but as I recall the "Brushaber was a non-resident" (or "Brushaber was not a citizen", or whatever it was) is based on an erroneous conclusion that because the Treasury pronouncement dealt with non-residents or noncitizens, the BRUSHABER CASE CITED in the pronouncement must ALSO have dealt with non-residents, etc. This is the kind of "analysis" that passes for "legal logic" with those people. "Stija" picked it up from tax protester material somewhere.

As LPC noted, even if Brushaber was a non-resident or non-citizen (which of course is possible), that would have nothing to do with the holdings in the Brushaber case.

EDIT: I see that Stija posted ahead of me.

And, of course, Stija provides the citation:

[Frank Brushaber] labeled nonresident by T.D. 2313.

No, Stija. Frank Brushaber was not labeled a nonresident by Treasury Decision 2313 (T.D. 2313).

[stija]

@Famspear,

1. Brushaber was a nonresident, at all times.
2. Brushaber thought Union Pacific RR was ONLY incorporated in Utah which would render it too nonresident.
3. Brushaber did not know Union Pacific RR was ORIGINALLY chartered by an Act of Congress, thus original corporate character was of United States, or domestic.
4. Brushaber lost.

As LPC noted, even if Brushaber was a non-resident or non-citizen (which of course is possible), that would have nothing to do with the holdings in the Brushaber case.

1. Yes, LPC was right 100%.
2. Now kneel before him.
3. Brushaber was born and raised in New York, and unlike you, understands territorial jurisdiction and domicile.
4. I have birth records because i wanted to be 100% sure.

No, Stija. Frank Brushaber was not labeled a nonresident by Treasury Decision 2313 (T.D. 2313).

1. If i prove you wrong, will you promise to never post in my topics again?
2. Stija changed his mind.
3. Famspear does not deserve to know the truth.
4. Yes, Brushaber was not the nonresident.
5. I change my stance.
6. Irrelevant.
7. See above where i said LPC was 100% correct in re: relevant issues of the case.

[webhick]

@Famspear,

1. Stija cares not about your political babble.
2. 1st Amendment political speech prohibited here, said the admin who locked the other topic.

I read Famspear's post three times I don't see any violations of our "No Political Discussions" rule.

[Famspear]

@Famspear,

1. Brushaber was a nonresident, at all times.
2. Brushaber thought Union Pacific RR was ONLY incorporated in Utah which would render it too nonresident.
3. Brushaber did not know Union Pacific RR was ORIGINALLY chartered by an Act of Congress, thus original corporate character was of United States, or domestic.
4. Brushaber lost.

Again, whether Frank Brushaber was a nonresident or not has nothing to do with the rulings in the case.

The place where Union Pacific was incorporated had nothing to do with the rulings in the case.

Yep. Brushaber lost.

There were three basic holdings in this case.

1. The Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes be apportioned among the states according to population, and the Revenue Act of 1913, imposing income taxes that are not apportioned among the states according to each state's population, is constitutional.

2. The Revenue Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law.

3. The Revenue Act does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution.

None of these holdings had anything to do with Frank Brushaber's residence or nonresidence, or the residence or nonresidence of Union Pacific.

Do not argue with me.

If you believe I am wrong, then I suggest you look for a citation that supports you. You will not find one.