The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

[SquatloosianTroll]

So you don't receive an income from selling beer, wine, or liquor? Which, by the way, is an excise tax. "...and subject to an INCOME TAX under the EXCISE LAWS of the United States"

No, I don't received an income from selling beer, wine, or liquor. If you sell such things, YOU receive an income from selling them.

So what? State a point.

On another note: 26 U.S. Code Part II - ITEMS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME
None of the cited items are applicable to my situation

Nobody here cares. The law doesn't care either. Section 61 means exactly what it says. We've already been through this. The law is not going to change for you, Troll.

I will ask it again: Compensation for services. What services am I being compensated for?

I don't know. And I don't care. What services if any are you providing, Troll? What if any compensation are you receiving?

Make a coherent point.

And how do you reconcile "all US citizens are required to file and pay the Federal Income Tax when someone reads this regarding withholding agents:

(d)Beneficial owner's or payee's claim of U.S. status -

(1)In general. Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a withholding agent is not required to withhold under chapter 3 of the Code on payments to a U.S. payee, to a person presumed to be a U.S. payee in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, or to a person that the withholding agent may treat as a U.S. beneficial owner of the payment. Absent actual knowledge or reason to know otherwise, a withholding agent may rely on the provisions of this paragraph (d) in order to determine whether to treat a payee or beneficial owner as a U.S. person.

Why do you think a "reconciliation" is needed here?

Troll, it is obvious from your incoherent writing that your thoughts are disjointed and confused.

[Famspear]

Dear Troll: No one is fooled by your diversionary tactics.

You are engaging in behavior that psychologists call projection. You are effectively accusing others of what you yourself have been doing.

If you're looking for guilt, look in your own mirror.

[notorial dissent]

Also, too, you are incredibly boring and not at all original. You're not even fun.

[Famspear]

Earlier in the thread, Troll brought up the phony idea that a person can incur Federal income tax only if the person is engaged in a "taxable activity". When asked to define "taxable activity," Troll responded with crap like this:

I believe I did answer Mr Wesley Serra's question:

Selling (an activity) alcohol tobacco and firearms.

It would seem to me that he needs to go back to school and further his education in the art of reading and comprehension....

As illustrated by the later posts in this thread, it is Troll who needs an education, not Serra. Troll falsely implied that the Troll knew the law, that Troll has mastered the art of reading and comprehension, when such is obviously not the case.

Troll is guilty of being arrogant -- of engaging in behavior known as "arrogating." He effectively falsely claimed to have knowledge and comprehension he clearly does not have.

arrogant (adjective): "exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance in an overbearing manner". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 63, G. & C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976); "full of or due to unwarranted pride and self-importance; overbearing; haughty". Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 77 (2d Coll. ed. 1978).

[to] arrogate (verb): "to claim or seize without justification.... to make undue claims to having". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 63, G. & C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976); "to claim or seize without right... to ascribe or attribute without reason". Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 77 (2d Coll. ed. 1978).

[Famspear]

Burnaby49 wrote:

One part that has a lot of Canadians pissed off is your global tax on US citizens even if they neither reside nor earn money in the US. I have a neighbour who came here when just a baby and has lived here ever since who is expected to pay US tax on his income, none of which is derived from American sources.....

Yes, the United States is unusual in this respect.

The tax effect is moderated -- only partially -- by a few provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, such as section 911. Under that provision, some of the foreign earned income of a U.S. citizen whose tax home is in a foreign country is or can be excluded from gross income. The exclusion amount is adjusted for inflation. For tax year 2016, the maximum income exclusion amount was $101,300. The computation is made on Form 2555, which is included in the Form 1040 tax return.

[jcolvin2]

Burnaby49 wrote:

One part that has a lot of Canadians pissed off is your global tax on US citizens even if they neither reside nor earn money in the US. I have a neighbour who came here when just a baby and has lived here ever since who is expected to pay US tax on his income, none of which is derived from American sources.....

Yes, the United States is unusual in this respect.

The tax effect is moderated -- only partially -- by a few provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, such as section 911. Under that provision, some of the foreign earned income of a U.S. citizen whose tax home is in a foreign country is or can be excluded from gross income. The exclusion amount is adjusted for inflation. For tax year 2016, the maximum income exclusion amount was $101,300. The computation is made on Form 2555, which is included in the Form 1040 tax return.

A lot of my clients who earn income in high tax (relative to the US) jurisdictions such as Canada and Japan end up owing no income tax (between the foreign earned income exclusion and the foreign tax credit), but those who are self employed end up owing self-employment tax.

[noblepa]

Burnaby49 wrote:

One part that has a lot of Canadians pissed off is your global tax on US citizens even if they neither reside nor earn money in the US. I have a neighbour who came here when just a baby and has lived here ever since who is expected to pay US tax on his income, none of which is derived from American sources.....

Yes, the United States is unusual in this respect.

The tax effect is moderated -- only partially -- by a few provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, such as section 911. Under that provision, some of the foreign earned income of a U.S. citizen whose tax home is in a foreign country is or can be excluded from gross income. The exclusion amount is adjusted for inflation. For tax year 2016, the maximum income exclusion amount was $101,300. The computation is made on Form 2555, which is included in the Form 1040 tax return.

A lot of my clients who earn income in high tax (relative to the US) jurisdictions such as Canada and Japan end up owing no income tax (between the foreign earned income exclusion and the foreign tax credit), but those who are self employed end up owing self-employment tax.

Just ask Boris Johnson, former mayor of London. He was born in New York, to British parents, so he had dual citizenship. He sold his house in or near London and made considerable profit. Apparently, the UK does not tax profit on the sale of one's primary residence, but the US does. The IRS somehow got wind of it and sent him a rather large tax bill. He has lived in the UK for most of his life, earned his income in the UK, and the house was clearly in the UK, yet the US claimed that he owed tax on the profit.

He has since renounced his US citizenship.

[Burnaby49]

Just ask Boris Johnson, former mayor of London. He was born in New York, to British parents, so he had dual citizenship. He sold his house in or near London and made considerable profit. Apparently, the UK does not tax profit on the sale of one's primary residence, but the US does. The IRS somehow got wind of it and sent him a rather large tax bill. He has lived in the UK for most of his life, earned his income in the UK, and the house was clearly in the UK, yet the US claimed that he owed tax on the profit.

This is a very, very big issue for Americans in Canada. We have a Principal Residence tax law that exempts any gain on the sale of your home from Canadian income tax. My neighbour bought her house way back in the early 1970's for about $50,000 - $60,000. It is now worth about $1,600,000. That will all be tax free to her on a sale. But the American I was discussing earlier, had he bought the house, would be taxable on it in the United States with no offsetting relief from tax in Canada. From what I've heard the U.S. is getting agressive about this and getting information about American citizens resident in Canda from the Canada Revenue Agency under information-sharing agreements.

My American acquaintance thinks this is unfair. So what? It's valid law and if he wants to avoid the tax liability he can renounce. He keeps complaining that he shouldn't have to give up his American citizenship. I tell him that if he's such a loyal American he shouldn't be upset about paying tax to his home country.

[NYGman]

I had issues with a US person, living in Canada, India FATCA. The US person filled out a W8-BEN With a US social security number. We asked about the same, and he said he was born in the US moved to Canada in his 20s and felt he owed nothing to the US having lived in Canada for over 30 years. Unfortunately when we asked if he had given up his US citizenship, and had the documents to prove it, he said no, why should he care about the US, he lives in Canada. Needless to say, under FATCA rules he was reported to the IRS as part of the client entities FATCA reporting. Now the IRS knows about him, I am sure they will go after him at some point, as the investment was quite large.

What kills me is that if he didn't acknowledge his US status, why use your US SSN when claiming foreign status. However it still would have been an issue here, as passport showed US place of birth, so questions would still need to be asked. However it's one thing to report a Mr. John Smith, board 2/3/1957 living at a Canadian address, vs. reporting Mr. John Smith, US SSN 567-89-1023. At least I think so. Either way, this person was obviously well off, and really should have sort some legal advice about his US tax status. We tried to tell him to do this but he obviously never did.

Is this fair? Well yes, people want to come to the US all the time. The immigration is difficult and getting harder by the day. Filing a return and paying tax, allows you to come back to the US should you so chose. As a US citizen you have that right. So as long as you maintain you citizen status, and the right to return, you have to pay you taxes owed. As pointed out, in many cases this may be small, but there are exceptions. People don't give up their US citizenship as it has intrinsic value. However in order to maintain that value, you must pay the tax you owe. You are free to give up your citizenship (although recently they made that a bit more costly too) and should do so if you don't like to pay tax to the US or have no interest in returning.

Most US ex-pats I know work in London, and do file US returns as they want to maintain their ability to come back to the US if they choose too.

[SquatloosianTroll]

Prove to me, and any others, with verifiable evidence backed up by facts that the constitution and code apply?

[NYGman]

Prove to me, and any others, with verifiable evidence backed up by facts that the constitution and code apply?

Let's reverse that shall we, as you are coming here, explain to us with verifiable evidence backed up by facts that the Constitution and tax code does not apply to a US citizen, or some one legally in the US.

YOU CAN'T!

I don't need to prove a generally accepted fact, the fact that you disagree with the normal understanding, means you need to prove the rest of the country is wrong, and you are right.

Edit: autocorrect typos

[Famspear]

Prove to me, and any others, with verifiable evidence backed up by facts that the constitution and code apply?

No, neither the regulars here nor the rest of the world is here to "prove" to you, grasshopper, that the "constitution" and "code" "apply".

And, whether the law applies to you is not a matter of providing "evidence".

[Famspear]

This week's troll, having been blown out of the water on his goofy copy and paste ideas about Federal taxation, is -- surprise! surprise! -- veering into the familiar copy and paste "sovereign citizen" rhetoric.

These idiots are sooooo creative!

[Dr. Caligari]

Prove to me, and any others, with verifiable evidence backed up by facts that the constitution and code apply?

You've really got me there!
You're absolutely right-- none of the codes apply to you, including the criminal code and its prohibitions on murder. I'll be heading right over to your children's preschool, as soon as I gas up my chainsaw.

[wserra]

Prove to me, and any others, with verifiable evidence backed up by facts that the constitution and code apply?

Having failed to score so much as a PAT with the goalposts in their current position, it's time to move them. And we all knew where they were going, Randall - right to Stevens' BS.

Let me ask you the question Stevens avoids as though it were radioactive - what "evidence" would you accept? Answer: none.

Homey don't play that.

[SquatloosianTroll]

Curses, foiled again LOLOLOLOL.

[Famspear]

And, upon that note, this excursion is concluded.

[The Observer]

I am moving the posts from the original thread that our recent troll hijacked, mainly due to the irrelevancy of the posts to the thread topic, but also to document the typical downward spiral that occurs when the sycophants of a particular guru come here to wage battle with our site regulars. Witness then how ST tries to bait us with stupid leading questions, using bad and irrelevant cites to the laws and regulations, and misinterpretations of the same. When caught and called on it, our troll then attempts to deflect and misdirect the thread by falling back on cutting and pasting from discredited tax protester sites; when that fails he then tries to move the goal posts and shift the burden of proof to us. At last frustrated, our 50-year old poster (or so he claims) does his best imitation of a 13-year old by spamming links to a YouTube video of his mentor, Marc Stevens.

[Dr. Caligari]

When caught and called on it, our troll then attempts to deflect and misdirect the thread by falling back on cutting and pasting from discredited tax protester sites; when that fails he then tries to move the goal posts and shift the burden of proof to us.

I especially liked how he claimed to have studied the tax code for years and then, when Famspear and others demolished his bizarre misreading of the Code, suddenly asked us to "prove" to him that the Code applies to him. Why spend years studying something that doesn't apply to him?

[SquatloosianTroll]

The epic fail of Quatloosian arguments

Upon further research, at LII, into 26 USC 6651 which was mentioned earlier I found by clicking the Authority(CFR) tab:

27 CFR Part 24 WINE

27 CFR Part BEER

and oh lookee here:

27 Part 70 PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

You all here are ignorant and just plain idiots. (Yes, I can do ad hominem too)