Irwin Schiff, 6th Amend, and Bi-Polar Disorder

[Famspear]

One of the comments after the article is from Sheldon Waxman. Here's a prior thread on him:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1555

[notorial dissent]

And people trust that idiot to invest money for them?

Sorta like they trusted Bernie Madoff. But point well taken.

[Paths of the Sea]

Peter Schiff has been engaged in the discussion there, via the readers' comments section.

Y'all might want to give further consideration to showing up there and engaging Peter Schiff, and his fellows, in that discussion.

Here's the link again for your convenience:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... in-schiff/

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Peter J. Reilly, in a readers' comment, posted the Quatloosian $10,000,000.00 challenge.

Peter Schiff responded on December 16, 2013 at about 8:00 AM with:

- I challenge that organization (Quatloos) to
- produce the IRC section that specifically
- imposes an income tax liability.
-
- Let them show me the section, with the
- words “liability” and “income tax” underlined.
-
- Their failure to do so will prove my father’s
- point.
-
-- Peter Schiff

[Famspear]

Peter J. Reilly, in a readers' comment, posted the Quatloosian $10,000,000.00 challenge.

Peter Schiff responded on December 16, 2013 at about 8:00 AM with:

- I challenge that organization (Quatloos) to
- produce the IRC section that specifically
- imposes an income tax liability.
-
- Let them show me the section, with the
- words “liability” and “income tax” underlined.
-
- Their failure to do so will prove my father’s
- point.
-
-- Peter Schiff

Sounds as though someone has bought into quite a bit of the tax protester rhetoric. This is an old, tired, and completely frivolous argument.

Peter Schiff can be understood for wanting to stick up for his daddy, but this is pretty weak.

There is no rule of law that states that a particular section of the Internal Revenue Code must contain the words "liability" and "income tax" in order for Irwin Schiff -- or anyone else -- to be "liable" for federal income tax.

[AndyK]

I suppose he won't accept 26USC 1

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,
and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

ad seq for categories other than 'married'

[Kestrel]

Failure to conform to his personal choice of magic words within his personally defined magical proximity proves nothing. If those specific words were used in the way he wants us to "show" him, he'd just demand a different combination of magic words.

Back to him: show us any court decision at the appellate level which agrees that there is no liability.

Better yet, try to prove it in court himself. Oh, wait. His father already tried. That's one reason why he's in prison today.

[.]

Peter Schiff is nothing like Madoff. At least as far as we know. He did well in '08 when everything collapsed, but absolutely horribly since.

He's a doom-and-gloomer. Which will probably not work out well because the US economy can withstand even the worst efforts of people determined to tie it in knots. The typical doom-and-gloomer, Schiff for instance, concludes that everything must and will fall apart, probably tomorrow.

It hasn't and it won't. I've been reading similar BS since 1965, when I was 13. He ain't the first guy to come up with this stuff, he's only one in a long, long, boring line, all looking to enrich themselves by either writing newsletters or by running money for a fee.

My suspicion is that markets have been busy discounting the prospect of something entirely different happening in the next few years. Perhaps because of the likelihood of a shift in power. I don't know. No one knows. Certainly not Peter Schiff.

In any case, Madoff was about a fake scheme to write covered calls. He never bought the underlying stocks and never wrote the associated call options.

He was a total fraud. Virtually from day one. Which is an indictment of the SEC, considering that they were tipped off years before the scheme blew up, but did nothing as Madoff was an influential guy in the industry.

Which is not to say that the basic concept wasn't valid -- that is, writing covered calls against existing paid-for positions -- can provide a good return. It's something that I do regularly. 3% dividends plus 3 or 4% from call writing makes for a very good return. Especially when added to capital appreciation over time.

Now, it helps to have to have some talent when it comes to determining the timing of the call-writing so as to engender the maximum frustration of (mostly speculator) call-buyers. Such that almost all of them expire worthless, so as to maximize your return. But, if something gets called away, you can always buy it back on a dip. Or buy something else. And write another call. Rinse. Repeat.

Schiff has run money for years without regulatory incident. I wouldn't invest a dime with him, but not because I thought he was running a fraud.

I wouldn't give him a dime to run because he's apparently too stupid and/or ignorant to totally disavow the idiotic theories of his father who will die in prison because of his nonsense. That's a deal-breaker.

[The Observer]

There is no rule of law that states that a particular section of the Internal Revenue Code must contain the words "liability" and "income tax" in order for Irwin Schiff -- or anyone else -- to be "liable" for federal income tax.

And this reveals the intellectual dishonesty that Peter and Irwin are resorting to in order to make it appear as though there is something deceitful about the IRC in regards as to whether the code actually can make people liable for income tax. Of course, in of itself, the fact that the income tax code exists, that the IRC 1 specifically mentions individuals and couples, would seem to indicate to that somehow Congress and the courts believe that the IRC does indeed allow the government to assess and collect income taxes from individuals. And you would think that the fact that passage of the 16th amendment in response to earlier Supreme Court tussles over the the validity of a income tax would mean something as well.

But Irwin and Peter wish to avoid the elephant rampaging around the room and focus instead on that phantom mouse sitting quitely underneath the house.

[Paths of the Sea]

Thanks to those who have joined the discussion at the Forbes site:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... in-schiff/

[Dr. Caligari]

Peter Schiff responded on December 16, 2013 at about 8:00 AM with:

- I challenge that organization (Quatloos) to
- produce the IRC section that specifically
- imposes an income tax liability.
-
- Let them show me the section, with the
- words “liability” and “income tax” underlined.
-
- Their failure to do so will prove my father’s
- point.

I contend that it is not illegal for me to cut off Peter Schiff's head with a chainsaw. If Peter disagrees, let him show me a statute with the words "illegal" and "chainsaw" underlined.

[The Observer]

contend that it is not illegal for me to cut off Peter Schiff's head with a chainsaw. If Peter disagrees, let him show me a statute with the words "illegal" and "chainsaw" underlined.

Brilliant, and to the point.

[grixit]

In honor of the entity hosting that discussion, let Peter Schiff tell us what people on the official list of the super rich, super duper rich, and super duper pooper scooper rich are using his fathers' methods to avoid paying income tax.

[Famspear]

This is a bit off-topic, but I have to say that the Forbes web pages linked above are so over-stuffed with advertisements and other garbage that I find it almost impossible to navigate. Everytime I try to use the scroll bar, etc., the thing hangs up. It's very difficult to read the comments posted. And my computer isn't that old, so I don't think it's a problem with a slow processor, etc.

[Paths of the Sea]

This is a bit off-topic, but I have to say that the Forbes web pages linked above are so over-stuffed with advertisements and other garbage that I find it almost impossible to navigate. Everytime I try to use the scroll bar, etc., the thing hangs up. It's very difficult to read the comments posted. And my computer isn't that old, so I don't think it's a problem with a slow processor, etc.

I guess it's not just me and my machine.

It seems that Forbes has done something to its website recently and I have noticed it's a little more difficult to use, but I am trying to adapt.

For those interested in the topics under consideration, I think the trouble is worth it and I again express my appreciation to those from Quatloos who have sought to engage the discussion regarding the Schiff matter.

It seems to have generated quite a bit of interest and it may be that, in response thereto, Peter J. Reilly may develop a stand-alone article featuring Quatloos which may be posted in the near future.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Kestrel]

This is a bit off-topic, but I have to say that the Forbes web pages linked above are so over-stuffed with advertisements and other garbage that I find it almost impossible to navigate. Everytime I try to use the scroll bar, etc., the thing hangs up. It's very difficult to read the comments posted. And my computer isn't that old, so I don't think it's a problem with a slow processor, etc.

I'm using Kaspersky Internet Security with the "anti-banner" setting enabled most of the time. It supresses most of that advertising junk, and has made the news videos (normally sandwiched between ad videos) a real pleasure to watch again.

Every now and then I have to switch "anti-banner" off when I want to view a website that absolutely will not come up without the ad showing. But that's not often.

[Famspear]

This is a bit off-topic, but I have to say that the Forbes web pages linked above are so over-stuffed with advertisements and other garbage that I find it almost impossible to navigate. Everytime I try to use the scroll bar, etc., the thing hangs up. It's very difficult to read the comments posted. And my computer isn't that old, so I don't think it's a problem with a slow processor, etc.

I'm using Kaspersky Internet Security with the "anti-banner" setting enabled most of the time. It supresses most of that advertising junk, and has made the news videos (normally sandwiched between ad videos) a real pleasure to watch again.

Every now and then I have to switch "anti-banner" off when I want to view a website that absolutely will not come up without the ad showing. But that's not often.

Thanks!