Stija on Stija

[darling]

So i can live and work without a number but i cannot be employed?

And a Social Security number is clearly required to comply with the filing requirements for the federal income tax.

If you want to live in Florida and work for yourself, doing yardwork or whatever, and ensure your gross income is always less than the filing threshhold, I suppose you could live and work without a number.

But you wouldn't need to invent any grand rationale or intricate conspiracy to explain that.

So what is the difference between employment and work? Well that took some years to understand.

The same as the difference between apple and fruit.

Work is a generic, colloquial, umbrella term for 'performing services'*.
Employment is a specific subset of 'work': 'performing services for someone else in exchange for compensation'*

I'm not sure why it would take anyone years to understand, but then again I'm not sure why people like Celine Dion either.

*For illustrative purposes only - not intended to be a legal/technical definition.

[Quixote]

I say this, because it is apparent to me that you guys are convinced that no man in this union can earn a living without incurring income, which said another way means that you believe you are slaves.

As usual, you didn't say what you meant, that we believe that no one can earn a living without incurring a tax liability. That must be what you meant, because earning income hardly makes one a slave by anyone's definition of slave.

I know for a fact that millions of Americans earn a living while incurring no income tax liability. Their exemptions, deductions and credits make their income tax liabilities $0.00. Of course, they are still subject to sales taxes, property taxes, etc., so I guess in your eyes they are slaves.

Ah, to live in good old days when the Founders ran the country and all men were tax free. Except for the tax on salt they needed to preserve meat and fish. And the tax on muskets and ammunition to shoot the game they preserved with the salt. And the tax on plows if they were farmers, as most were. And the taxes on coffee, tea and liquor. And the tax on ... well you get the idea. Or maybe not.

[stija]

[Unverifiable factual claims deleted by LPC]
4. Stija loves America and its liberties and wouldn't exchange it for anything.
5. Working and being employed is not the same. Illegals can contract for work in Arizona but they cannot be publicly employed by Arizona or United States because they do not have a legal status.
6. You still fail to understand the difference between civil rights and natural rights or legal (public) rights and natural rights.
7. Stija has very few public rights as necessary to function publicly within his state.
8. I know what i said which is that you guys believe that anytime a man gets a paycheck that is considered to be gross income; Stija dissents with that proposition, [Unverifiable factual claims deleted by LPC]
9. You and like minded people are making it hard for Stija to function in a private capacity because you believe you cannot work or labor without accepting a legal right or privilege.
10. Stija is not wrong about IRC, but he may be wrong about many other things not relevant to these forums.
[Unverifiable factual claims deleted by LPC]
12. Stija is and remains a nontaxpayer and a nonresident with the IRS.
13. Stija knows his rights and aint no slave.
14. Anyone who believes that he can't earn a living without owing a part of what he lawfully acquires or earns is a slave.
15. What would you guys say to an excise tax on polling booths for administrative costs. It is not a direct tax on your right to vote, just an excise to cover the costs on the event of processing the vote or realization of the vote in public records.
16. To concede that income taxes are excises in relation to your right to earn a living is to concede that 15. is also an excise.
17. Direct taxes are unavoidable, and i don't mean by exemptions or deductions.
18. Excises are avoidable.
[Unverifiable factual claims deleted by LPC]
20. Stay safe.

[Cpt Banjo]

1. Stija earns private income just into 6 figures as a licensed professional in his state and pays no income taxes because his income is not taxable pursuant to 7701(a)(31)(A).

Right. And I'm married to a supermodel, have $2 billion in the bank, and can play banjo far better than Earl ever could.

So you're a foreign estate??

15. What would you guys say to an excise tax on polling booths for administrative costs. It is not a direct tax on your right to vote, just an excise to cover the costs on the event of processing the vote or realization of the vote in public records.

If you had to pay the tax in order to vote, it would violate the 24th Amendment.

17. Direct taxes are unavoidable, and i don't mean by exemptions or deductions.
18. Excises are avoidable.

Wrong on both counts. An ad valorem tax on land is a direct tax that can be avoided by not owning land. The estate tax is an excise that can't be avoided (if you try giving away your property before you die, you would be subject to the gift tax, which is another excise).

[Pottapaug1938]

Add to that the fact that stija's arguments have never -- not even once -- prevailed in court, and what you wind up with is someone who simply hasn't been caught yet. It's like declaring that you've won a baseball game when your team is up 2-0 after six innings, with the sun shining brightly and no sign of rain.

[stija]

1. Stija earns private income just into 6 figures as a licensed professional in his state and pays no income taxes because his income is not taxable pursuant to 7701(a)(31)(A).

Right. And I'm married to a supermodel, have $2 billion in the bank, and can play banjo far better than Earl ever could.

So you're a foreign estate??

15. What would you guys say to an excise tax on polling booths for administrative costs. It is not a direct tax on your right to vote, just an excise to cover the costs on the event of processing the vote or realization of the vote in public records.

If you had to pay the tax in order to vote, it would violate the 24th Amendment.

17. Direct taxes are unavoidable, and i don't mean by exemptions or deductions.
18. Excises are avoidable.

Wrong on both counts. An ad valorem tax on land is a direct tax that can be avoided by not owning land. The estate tax is an excise that can't be avoided (if you try giving away your property before you die, you would be subject to the gift tax, which is another excise).

1. Ad valorem taxes are indirect taxes - a tax on value of property. You explained how to avoid them because they are avoidable and not DIRECT by definition.
2. Direct taxes bare on me directly.
[Unverifiable factual claims deleted by LPC]
4. You are blinded by your arrogance and ruled by your ignorance.
5. But you win.
6. 1-0 for you.
7. Hope you feel better.
8. If i had to pay a tax when i contracted for property it would violate my 1st amendment - see Ninth Circuit Court ruling I posted before.
9. Stija's arguments have never been raised in court.
10. There is no need to raise arguments when the statutory language in IRC provides me recourse.
11. Stija doesn't win, Stija avoids.
12. Winning is for boosting egos.

[AndyK]

Note to the casual or curious reader:

Stija has finally abandoned his loaded/misleading questions approach since he could not accept the straight-forward, factual, and correct answers which he received.

He has abandoned attempting to post blatantly incorrect information because it always gets refuted or corrected.

Instead, he has finally revealed his status as an illegal tax evader and posted two long strings of time-worn, disproven, tax-denier misstatements.

DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME.

Sitja claims (without any form of proof or substantiation) to not pay any income taxes.

If his income is above the legal threshhold for filing, the IRS computerized matching progrm will eventually catch up with him. At that point assessment and collection procedures will begin.

Sitja will have to pay all the back taxes plus interest and penalties and could possibly end up in prison.

He will, of course, claim that all of the above is not true. He will not be able to actually refute a single word of it based on any legal argument.

Stija is not a good role model.

[stija]

Sitja claims (without any form of proof or substantiation) to not pay any income taxes.

[Unverifiable factual claims deleted by LPC] Don't misconstrue what this fool is telling you guys. He is inferring that Stija is doing something illegal, when in fact any individual not incurring taxable income or foreign income pursuant to 7701(a)(31)(A) is not required to pay a penny.

(31) Foreign estate or trust
(A) Foreign estate
The term “foreign estate” means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

26 USC 7701. VERIFIABLE FACTUAL LEGAL EVIDENCE TELLING YOU THAT YOU CAN EARN INCOME THAT IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER TITLE A.

Instead, he has finally revealed his status as an illegal tax evader and posted two long strings of time-worn, disproven, tax-denier misstatements.

If he says so. He's a professional guys, he knows. Must be nice in your world, having it your way all the time.

[LPC]

The moderators have decided that unverifiable factual claims will no longer be allowed as "evidence" in any discussion. I have just gone through stija's most recent postings and deleted those kinds of claims.

In other words, if you can't point to a public record (such as published opinions or court records) or public sources (such as media accounts), it doesn't exist.

[Duke2Earl]

7701(a)(31(A) has absolutely no application to citizens of the United States. The worldwide income of United States citizens is subject to the income tax. And if you were born in the United States you are a citizen whether you applied for it or not. There are ways to disavow Unites States citizenship but there is a hefty tax for doing so and that you do have to apply for. These matters are not subject to debate... they are the truth. Have a nice illegal life.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
11. Stija doesn't win ...

A stija is a loser who, like so many other losers with similar nonsense rattling around in their heads, likes to lure people into the fantasy world.

I'm reminded of "The Walrus and the Carpenter," wherein the oysters wound up being eaten after being lured along.

[Cpt Banjo]

1. Ad valorem taxes are indirect taxes - a tax on value of property. You explained how to avoid them because they are avoidable and not DIRECT by definition.
2. Direct taxes bare on me directly.

The Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions (most recently in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case) that the term "direct taxes" as used in the Constitution consists solely of capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property (such as an ad valorem tax on land), and an income tax is neither. The Court rejected the concept of avoidability as a characteristic of an excise over 100 years ago.

[stija]

7701(a)(31(A) has absolutely no application to citizens of the United States. The worldwide income of United States citizens is subject to the income tax. And if you were born in the United States you are a citizen whether you applied for it or not. There are ways to disavow Unites States citizenship but there is a hefty tax for doing so and that you do have to apply for. These matters are not subject to debate... they are the truth. Have a nice illegal life.

1. In which post did i say i was a citizen of United States.
2. I remember referring to myself correctly as a citizen and domiciliary of Arizona.
3. Prove me wrong.
4. Otherwise you inferred what your mind wanted you to infer.
5. I am a naturalized American or state national. See 8USC 1101(a)(21) but NOT (a)(22).
6. Naturalization is the process of conferring nationality upon one after birth. See 8USC 1101(a)(23).
7. I am not and never was a United States citizen under any federal statute.
8. Again, I am a citizen and domiciliary (see 9.) of Arizona - political status (1st amendment choice)
9. I am an American national or Arizona national - domicile/legal status. (domicile based)
10. You don't discriminate between the two, but the courts and i do.

[LPC]

After three days, hundreds of posts, and an unfathomable amount of gibberish, stija has finally come to the point: His income is from a "foreign estate" and is therefore not included in taxable income under section 7701(a)(31)(A).

Believe it or not, at least one other fool has made this claim:

In their prayer for relief, petitioners "request and lawfully demand" that the Court declare, inter alia, that "Petitioners are non-resident aliens under the internal revenue laws" or in the alternative, that "the income, if there be any, was from a foreign estate or trust within the State of Arizona and without the United States."

[...]

The petition filed in this case does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). There is neither assignment of error nor allegation of fact in support of any justiciable claim. Rather, there is nothing but tax protester rhetoric, as demonstrated by the passages from the petition that we have quoted above. [Citations omitted.]

We see no need to catalog petitioners' contentions and painstakingly address them. We have dealt with many of them before. [Citations omitted.] Moreover, as the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked: "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." [Citations omitted.] Suffice it to say that both this and other Federal courts have consistently and uniformly held for many years that wages are income and that a taxpayer has no basis in his or her labor. [Citations omitted.]

Because the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we shall grant respondent's motion to dismiss.

[...]

The record in this case convinces us that petitioners were not interested in disputing the merits of either the deficiencies in income tax or the additions to tax determined by respondent in the notices of deficiency. Rather, the record demonstrates that petitioners regard this case as a vehicle to protest the tax laws of this country and espouse their own misguided views.

McNeel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-211 (sanctions of $1,500 imposed), aff'd 60 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 1995).

I see that stija now claims to be in Arizona. Coincidence? Or maybe stija is McNeel and was too stupid to learn from the first kick of the mule?

[stija]

1. That is not me.
2. I would never ENTER a statutory Tax Court which REQUIRES one to be a Title 26 resident, citizen, or taxpayer to claim that i am not.
3. I told you before, I don't play their game in their courts by their rules.
4. Falsehood deleted AK
5. I am sure they claimed their Title 26 'wages' came from foreign source.
6. All Title 26 'wages' by definition contain portions of 'gains' and 'profits' and are includible in 'gross income.'
7. You claim your wages not taxable for whatever reason in their court, you lose.
8. Where were his businesses registered?
9. What was the source of their income?
10. Many more questions.
11. Attach the full case.

I'd love to read the case otherwise, to see what other frivolities they claimed. You've finally found something that may be relevant. Let me read it first.

I can't find the above reference in the case. Can you attach the case or where you got that from? Or can you quote the whole reference, a paragraph before and after what was alleged. You may be quoting it out of context because the next paragraph in which the court adjudicates the merits may have to do with something else. Not that Kanter was correct, i am not saying that at all. I just want to read the whole thing and understand what happened. Plus he had business ventures and proceeds from those businesses, Stija does not.

Bottom line is that i would NEVER enter a franchise federal court to argue my rights. Falsehood deleted AK First and biggest mistake.

Second, Kanter was a taxpayer. Falsehood deleted AK

Falsehood deleted AK

[ArthurWankspittle]

Ah, to live in good old days when the Founders ran the country and all men were tax free. Except for the tax on salt they needed to preserve meat and fish. And the tax on muskets and ammunition to shoot the game they preserved with the salt. And the tax on plows if they were farmers, as most were. And the taxes on coffee, tea and liquor. And the tax on ... well you get the idea. Or maybe not.

Don't start on taxes on tea, you know the trouble that caused last time.....

[stija]

Suffice it to say that both this and other Federal courts have consistently and uniformly held for many years that wages are income and that a taxpayer has no basis in his or her labor.

Falsehood deleted AK

In its Oral Opinion, the Court specifically addressed, and rejected, petitioners' contention that they had a cost basis in their labor equal to the amount of wages received. In addition, petitioners were expressly told that they are not exempt from Federal income tax.

1. Exempt is a privileged status authorized by statutes.
2. Petitioners did not qualify.
3. Petitioners at some point admitted to having wages.
Falsehood deleted AK

As stated above, the contention that wages do not constitute income has been consistently and uniformly rejected, for many years, by both this and other Federal courts.

1. Again, all wages by definition constitute income.
Falsehood deleted AK

But good one, who ever posted this. Falsehood deleted AK. Falsehood deleted AK

[Arthur Rubin]

stija claims to be a citizen and resident of Arizona. It is possible for a person to be a citizen of a state (as defined by that state) and not be a citizen of the United States. In the case of Arizona, though, it's extremely unlikely.

One wonders how stija became a citizen of Arizona. If it's any of the means that I believe at all likely, he became a citizen of the US at that time or earlier.

[stija]

stija claims to be a citizen and resident of Arizona. It is possible for a person to be a citizen of a state (as defined by that state) and not be a citizen of the United States. In the case of Arizona, though, it's extremely unlikely.

One wonders how stija became a citizen of Arizona. If it's any of the means that I believe at all likely, he became a citizen of the US at that time or earlier.

1. It is possible to be a citizen of a state and not a citizen of United States under federal statutes but NOT under the 14th Amendment.
2. Stija applied on a DS 11 form just 2 years ago as a citizen of Arizona and NOT the U.S. citizen on the DS 11 form.
3. See other thread.
4. Stija's passport says "United States of America" and not United States.
5. Stija's naturalization certificate also says that STija was accepted as "a citizen of the United States of America."
6. Stija was naturalized.
7. Falsehood deleted AK

(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Falsehood deleted AK

[Arthur Rubin]

stija claims to be a citizen and resident of Arizona. It is possible for a person to be a citizen of a state (as defined by that state) and not be a citizen of the United States. In the case of Arizona, though, it's extremely unlikely.

One wonders how stija became a citizen of Arizona. If it's any of the means that I believe at all likely, he became a citizen of the US at that time or earlier.

1. It is possible to be a citizen of a state and not a citizen of United States under federal statutes but NOT under the 14th Amendment.

1. Federal constitutional amendments override federal statutes.
2. There is no "Title 26" definition of citizen.
3. Can you find a federal statue which (assuming the stated facts) says you are not a US citizen?