Stija on Stija

[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.

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.

1. Irrelevant gibberish.
2. LPC proved me wrong.
3. I told him he was right.
4. End of this topic.
5. Stija out.
6. Famspear, find a friend that cares.

[stija]

@webhick,

1. You are right, no true politics, but his gibberish is just his beliefs and 1st amendment protected speech in relation to the Gov't only.

@Famspear,

Do not ask me for any more citations to authority.

1. Any more?
2. Are you drunk sir?

[Famspear]

Here, "Stija". This is T.D. 2313 -- from none other than Lowell ("Larry") Becraft's web site:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TD2313.pdf

Nowhere in this pronouncement is Frank Brushaber labeled a non-resident.

Read the first sentence. People like you misinterpret this as a statement that Frank Brushaber was a NONRESIDENT ALIEN.

But that's not what it says.

T.D. 2313 does not designate Frank Brushaber as a nonresident alien.

[stija]

Here, "Stija". This is T.D. 2313 -- from none other than Lowell ("Larry") Becraft's web site:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TD2313.pdf

Nowhere in this pronouncement is Frank Brushaber labeled a non-resident.

Read the first sentence. People like you misinterpret this as a statement that Frank Brushaber was a NONRESIDENT ALIEN.

But that's not what it says.

T.D. 2313 does not designate Frank Brushaber as a nonresident alien.

1. LPC was 100%.
2. Stija cares not what you think.
3. Stija calls on webhick to lock this topic because it served its purpose and is done.

[Dr. Caligari]

4. Question one was "Can United States create a trade or business within the states to tax it?"

I think you are quoting language from the License Tax Cases, where the Supreme Court said that, if gambling was illegal in a state, Congress could not license people in that state to gamble just for the purpose of taxing them. Limited to that kind of situation, the answer is "no." But Congress can, for example, create a corporation which will do business in one or more states and whose income is taxable (I believe they did that with Amtrak).

[Famspear]

Here, "Stija". This is T.D. 2313 -- from none other than Lowell ("Larry") Becraft's web site:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TD2313.pdf

Nowhere in this pronouncement is Frank Brushaber labeled a non-resident.

Read the first sentence. People like you misinterpret this as a statement that Frank Brushaber was a NONRESIDENT ALIEN.

But that's not what it says.

T.D. 2313 does not designate Frank Brushaber as a nonresident alien.

1. LPC was 100%.
2. Stija cares not what you think.
3. Stija calls on webhick to lock this topic because it served its purpose and is done.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Again, do your homework. Don't just copy and paste what you've read.

You brought up the "Brushaber was a nonresident" nonsense. You cited the Treasury Decision that you obviously thought supported your position.

Yet, once you were embarrassed, you came back with "Stija cares not what you think" and Stija calls on webhick to lock this topic....."

I love this forum.

[Number Six]

They've abdicated common sense.

[stija]

@famspear,

1. Stija has been a nonresident with IRS since 2006.
2. Stija knows firsthand who and what he is, as did Brushaber.
3. I did my homework.
4. I haven't played income tax games since 2006.
5. You should do some homework.
6. Stija pays his federal taxes as a nonresident, if and when he has taxable income.
7. The intent of this topic was to prove Stija wrong.
8. It accomplished it on the third post.

@numbersix,

1. Stija may not have common sense, in your opinion.
2. There is nothing 'common' about Stija.
3. Stija very different, in every aspect, not just legal.
4. But stija understands American Jurisprudence, because he has to - men will rule themselves or be ruled - Stija chose to rule himself through his public servants.
5. Stija loves America.
6. Not so much apathetic Americans allowing themselves to be ruled and @#$%ing up this union and undermining Stija's rights in the process.
7. American Jurisprudence requires common sense, coherent thinking, and logical reasoning skills.

[stija]

4. Question one was "Can United States create a trade or business within the states to tax it?"

I think you are quoting language from the License Tax Cases, where the Supreme Court said that, if gambling was illegal in a state, Congress could not license people in that state to gamble just for the purpose of taxing them. Limited to that kind of situation, the answer is "no." But Congress can, for example, create a corporation which will do business in one or more states and whose income is taxable (I believe they did that with Amtrak).

1. I am not quoting anything.
2. When i quote, it is in quotes.
3. I asked a question.
4. Do you know the answer?
5. Or do you want to continue to tell me what i am thinking?

[Dr. Caligari]

Asked and answered.

[stija]

Asked and answered.

1. If Stija read your post correctly, the answer to his question is: "in the instance of License Tax Cases no."
2. Stija agrees with the corporation idea, but never asked that question.
3. Did Stija understand your answer?
4. If 3 is affirmative, Stija will take infer that Congress cannot create a trade or business, or other similar public right within the states to tax it, because such powers would be reserved by the states. (Court referred to as repugnant to the same powers possessed by the state right?)

[LPC]

1. You are right, it does not say that, it infers it.

No, *you* infer; the opinion *implies*.

(Except it doesn't.)

[Dr. Caligari]

Congress can, in the course of exercising its enumerated powers, create corporations or other businesses which will do business within the states, if creating such a business is "necessary and proper" for carrying out whatever enumerated power Congress is exercising. (The Bank of the United States was the first example; Amtrak was a more recent example.) Congress can make such corporations taxable or not, as it wishes. Congress cannot create corporations when doing so is not in furtherance of any of its enumerated powers, because that would invade the powers of the states.

[stija]

1. You are right, it does not say that, it infers it.

No, *you* infer; the opinion *implies*.

(Except it doesn't.)

1. Again, you are right 100%.
2. The opinion elaborately explains that if the burden was directly on the agent (agency, instrumentality) of the gov't, IID would have covered him as well.

[stija]

Congress can, in the course of exercising its enumerated powers, create corporations which will do business within the states. (The Bank of the United States was the first example; Amtrak was a more recent example.) Congress can make such corporations taxable or not, as it wishes. Congress cannot create corporations when doing so is not in furtherance of any of its enumerated powers, because that would invade the powers of the states.

1. Stija agrees 100% with what you just said.
2. Stija still not sure if he understood your answer from his previous post correctly?

[stija]

Q1: Why is United States defined many times throughout Title 26? Or, alternatively, why not define United States once to include everything and be done with it?
Q2: Why is United States defined in 7701 different than in 4612?
Q3: Why was there a need to redefine it in 4612 if the definition from 7701 was all inclusive?
Q4: What does the U.S. Constitution say about territory/geography given or possessed by the United States government?

Please do not post if you are Famspear, or Pottapaugh1938 because your posts will simply be ignored. If you are one of the aforementioned individuals, you are wasting your breath.

Thanks.

[stija]

@stija,

1. Congress cannot create a trade or business within a state in order to tax it. It matters not whether we call it a trade or business or a business, it cannot be created within the state to be taxed. Dr. answered it properly when he said that Congress can create a corp, bank, business, trade or business, or whatever and operate it within the states on one of their enumerated powers, but Congress cannot created any such public rights WITHIN the state. Such rights are EXCLUSIVELY of the states domain.
2. Information returns are triggered by payments of more than 600$ within a taxable period made in connection with a trade or business, pursuant to 26USC 6041.

Who here received payments in connection with United States trade or business within their state? I know i did not. In fact, Stija needs nothing from United States except obedience to the U.S. Constitution which is the law of the land he inhabits.

[AndyK]

2. 1st Amendment political speech prohibited here, said the admin who locked the other topic.

The First Amendment is not applicable to this or any other privately-owned internet forum.

If you violate the forum rules, you could be banned or subject to some other form of oversight.

[stija]

2. 1st Amendment political speech prohibited here, said the admin who locked the other topic.

The First Amendment is not applicable to this or any other privately-owned internet forum.

If you violate the forum rules, you could be banned or subject to some other form of oversight.

1. You guys
2. Can't even read simple English properly.
3. ESL English says that not applicable = prohibited here.

[Famspear]

Q1: Why is United States defined many times throughout Title 26? Or, alternatively, why not define United States once to include everything and be done with it?
Q2: Why is United States defined in 7701 different than in 4612?
Q3: Why was there a need to redefine it in 4612 if the definition from 7701 was all inclusive?
Q4: What does the U.S. Constitution say about territory/geography given or possessed by the United States government?

Please do not post if you are Famspear, or Pottapaugh1938 because your posts will simply be ignored. If you are one of the aforementioned individuals, you are wasting your breath.

Thanks.

No, my posts will not be ignored. No, I will not be wasting my breath.

The short, non-technical answer to your question is that "United States" is defined differently in different places for the same reason that any other term is defined differently in different places: a different meaning (even if it is only a slightly different meaning) is intended in one place when compared to the meaning intended in another place. Different code sections are drafted with different purposes.

Pull out a good, standard collegiate-level dictionary and look up the word "run." Check out how many meanings are listed -- some very close to each other, others not.

Many, many words in English have multiple meanings.

Example: The term "United States" has both a geographic meaning and a political meaning.

In the geographic sense, the term "United States" (meaning, the "United States of America") can mean the actual physical area of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Or, it could mean all those areas plus Puerto Rico. Or, it could mean all those areas plus Puerto Rico plus Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and so on.

In the political sense, however, the term "United States" could mean the national (or "federal") government for the physical, geographic areas described above.

I see that in section 4612(a)(4)(A), the definition is used in a geographic sense:

The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

Why did Congress list Puerto Rico but not the U.S. Virgin Islands? I don't know. Maybe the Virgin Islands qualifies as a "possession of the United States."

I'm not worried about it. If I ever need to use this Code section for some reason, I might or might need to know why. I'll cross that bridge if I come to it.