The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

[bmxninja357]

projection with intent to muster infighting not debate or acknowledgement of facts.

ninj

[NYGman]

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)

And, what's your point. You still don't answer the question we set out for you

[Famspear]

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)

Uh, no, we are not ignorant and "just plain idiots". And, no, apparently you cannot do ad hominem "too."

What you are doing is "name calling" or using an "epithet."

We demolished you by using logic. And, to the extent that any name-calling has been used against you, it was justified by your own posts.

By contrast, you have not identified one single incorrect thing that the Quatloos regulars have posted here.

And this:

27 CFR Part 24 WINE

27 CFR Part BEER

and oh lookee here:

27 Part 70 PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

....is not a logical argument. You're simply copying and pasting headings from 27 CFR. We've already explained 27 CFR, and we've already demolished your arguments (to the extent your writing is coherent enough to be considered an argument at all).

I understand that you're angry and frustrated, but you brought it on yourself.

[SquatloosianTroll]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5

[SquatloosianTroll]

Okay, my apologies for the epithets and name calling. That was inexcusable. I'm not 3 years old lol.
But to be fair some of you are attacking my character which is ad hominem. Where and why do I deserve that?

So, sorry, what was the question again? I think it was about section 61 right?

[notorial dissent]

So, or more specifically, so what???

[SquatloosianTroll]

So, or more specifically, so what???

So not a care in the world for my posts?

[SquatloosianTroll]

4 U.S.C. Sec. 111. State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal areas; taxation affecting Federal employees; income tax.
The United States consents to the taxation of pay or compensation for personal service as an officer or employee of the United States, a territory or possession or political subdivision thereof, the government of the District of Columbia, or an agency or instrumentality of one or more of the foregoing, by a duly constituted taxing authority having jurisdiction, if the taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation.

(a) General definitionExcept as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

These are the individuals they are talking about in Sec. 61. Federal Employees

[SquatloosianTroll]

Case cites in favor of the taxpayer:
"Tax statutes . . . should be strictly construed, and, if any ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen. Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, 374; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 198 F. 199, 201, aff'd 201 F. 918; Parkview Bldg. Assn. v. Herold, 203 F. 876, 880; Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N.Y. 51, 57."

"On behalf of the Government it is urged that taxation is a practical matter and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon which the tax is imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions. But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153."

And again, in United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, the court also held:

“The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar"

This rule of strict construction against the taxing authority was reiterated in Tandy Leather Company v. United States, 347 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1965), where Judge Hutcheson of our 5th Circuit eloquently and unequivocally proclaimed at p. 694-5:

". . . In ruling as he did, that the taxpayer had the obligation to show that sales of the articles in suit were not subject to the excise taxes collected, the district judge was misled by the erroneous contention of the tax collector into misstating the rule of proof in a tax case. This is: that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid.

"The Government's claim and the judge's ruling come down in effect to the proposition that the state of construction of appellants' kits had reached such an advanced level that the tax levied on the finished products could be collected on their sale, though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians! There is no warrant in law for such a holding. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at p. 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211. In 51 American Jurisprudence, "Taxation", Sec. 316, "Strict or Liberal Construction", supported by a great wealth of authority, it is said:

'Although it is sometimes broadly stated either that tax laws are to be strictly construed or, on the other hand, that such enactments are to be liberally construed, this apparent conflict of opinion can be reconciled if it is borne in mind that the correct rule appears to be that where the intent of meaning of tax statutes, or statutes levying taxes, is doubtful, they are, unless a contrary legislative intention appears, to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer or citizen. Any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer.'

"The judgment was wrong. It is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for plaintiffs and for further and not inconsistent proceedings."

Subtitle A is a tax on nonresident aliens and US citizens living and working abroad and apparently Federal employees working in the United States.

[SquatloosianTroll]

Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1898)

"...Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes ..."

and

“… it is apparent (1) that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the constitution and those who adopted it; (2) that, under the state system of taxation, all taxes on real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes;” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 574 (1895)

and;

“... A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution.... “
“We are of opinion that the law in question, so far as it levies a tax on the rents or income of real estate, is in violation of the constitution, and is invalid.” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 583 (1895)

and;
“...We have unanimously held in this case that, so far as this law operates on the receipts from municipal bonds , it cannot be sustained, because it is a tax on the powers of the States, and on their instrumentalities to borrow money, and consequently repugnant to the Constitution. ...it follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property equally exists as to the revenue therefrom. Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution. In England, we do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a direct tax. In Dowell's History of Taxation and Taxes in England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a direct tax. Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 586 (1895)
and, from the supporting opinion of Justice Fields in this case:

“I am of opinion that the whole law of 1894 should be declared void, and without any binding force,-that part which relates to the tax on the rents, profits, or income from real estate, that is, so much as constitutes part of the direct tax, because not imposed by the rule of apportionment according to the representation of the states, as prescribed by the constitution; and that part which imposes a tax upon the bonds and securities of the several states, and upon the bonds and securities of their municipal bodies, and upon on the salaries of judges of the courts of the United States, as being beyond the power of congress; and that part which lays duties, imposts, and excises, as void in not providing for the uniformity required by the constitution in such cases” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 607 (1895)
But wait, he’s not done yet:

“The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of $4,000 and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation. Hamilton says in one of his papers (the Continentalist): 'The genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the state demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue.'” 1 Hamilton's Works (Ed. 1885) 270. Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 596 (1895)

His words ring as truly prophetic, as we are certainly now confronted today with all of the same aspects of the income tax that he confronted and rejected in his day. Justice Fields further pursues this issue,

“The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society. It was hoped and believed that the great amendments to the constitution which followed the late Civil War had rendered such legislation impossible for all future time. But the objectionable legislation reappears in the act under consideration.” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 596 (1895)

And, in recognition of the long since forgotten constitutional limitations on the federal power to tax,

“There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in congress. There are limitations, as he justly observes, of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free governments; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations. Citizens' Savings Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, and Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487, 1 Sup. Ct. 442.” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 599 (1895)

“The inherent and fundamental nature and character of a tax is that of a contribution to the support of the government, levied upon the principle of equal and uniform apportionment among the persons taxed, and any other exaction does not come within the legal definition of a 'tax.'” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 599 (1895)

And finally from Justice Fields

“Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundation of the government. If the provisions of the constitution can be set aside by an act of congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich,-a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness. 'If the court sanctions the power of discriminating taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the constitution,' as said by one who has been all his life a student of our institutions, 'it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our present government will commence.' If the purely arbitrary limitation of four thousand dollars in the present law can be sustained, none having less than that amount of income being assessed or taxed for the support of the government, the limitation of future congresses may be fixed at a much larger sum, at five or ten or twenty thousand dollars, parties possessing an income of that amount alone being bound to bear the burdens of government; or the limitation may be designated at such an amount as a board of 'walking delegates' may deem necessary. There is no safety in allowing the limitation to be adjusted except in strict compliance with the mandates of the constitution, which require its taxation, if imposed by direct taxes, to be apportioned among the states according to their representation, and, if imposed by indirect taxes, to be uniform in operation and, so far as practicable, in proportion to their property, equal upon all citizens. Unless the rule of the constitution governs, a majority may fix the limitation at such rate as will not include any of their own number.” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 607 (1895 (emphasis added)

and, even in dissent:

“...that personal property, contracts, obligations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax. The United States Constitution provides Congress the power to lay and collect taxes directly only as long as it is apportioned with regard to the census or enumeration." Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1896)

[SquatloosianTroll]

SOME CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

By Howard Zaritsky Legislative Attorney American Law Division

May 25, 1979

Report No. 79-131 A

... In Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916), the Supreme Court held that the income tax , including a tax on dealings in property, was an indirect tax, rather than a direct tax, and that the

"the command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to the rule of apportionment by a consideration of the source from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class." 240 U.S. 1 18-19 (1916)

This same view was reiterated by the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) in which the court stated that the:

"Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged." 240 U.S. 112 (1916)

Therefore, it is clear that the income tax is an "indirect" tax of the broad category of "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," subject to the rule of uniformity, rather than the rule of apportionment.

[Gregg]

No, its clear that the Court ruled that the distinction was no longer important, an income tax no longer was subject to apportionment regardless of whether it was an excise tax or not.

You don't really read very well, do you?

[SquatloosianTroll]

The 1954 version of the United States Code shows a footnote for Section 61. The footnote reads:

"Source: Sec. 22(a), 1939 Code, substantially unchanged"

For some reason the footnote was dropped when the law was recodified in 1986. It is not known why the footnote was dropped, but it is very important because, as you can see, the footnote identifies that the code source of Section 61, is Section 22(a) in the 1939 version of the code (the laws). The 1939 version is the version just previous to the 1954 version.
Now, being able to research the source of a law is very important in determining how that law is supposed to be properly applied. Without a review of the source materials it is very difficult to accurately determine how a law was originally intended to be applied, and the courts, of course, do not have authority to write law or change law, only the authority to apply it as it is written to the instant circumstances present in the instant case before them, with further regard only for its original, stated congressional intent.

So we go to Section 22(a) in the 1939 code, and we see that the formatting of the paragraph has changed, but that indeed, the substance of the language is pretty much the same as in Section 61.

SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

(a) General Definition. -"Gross Income" includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses commerce or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever...."

Now, it is very important to understand how Section 22 was implemented and applied in 1939 in order to understand how Section 61 is supposed to be applied today. The two sections are inextricably linked in such relevant fashion, and the answer to our question of how Section 61 can be Constitutional, given the Pollock decision, can only be found by a thorough examination of this relationship.

Now, once the source of a code section is known, it is possible to verify how that law was originally intended to be implemented, and how it actually was implemented in the law originally, and to research, through the Parallel Tables, how that law is supposed to be applied today, based on how it was originally implemented. So we look up Section 22 in the 1939
references of the Code Tables (still in the law in 1991). And we find:

CFR INDEX PARALLEL TABLE
1991 Enabling sections
_____________________________________
26 U.S.C. (1939 I.R.C.)
22 ............................ 26 Part 519
40 ............................ 26 Part 1
62 .............26 Parts 509,513,514,520,521
143-144 ....................... 26 Part 521
...

26 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter G - REGULATIONS UNDER TAX CONVENTIONS

PARTS 500-507 [RESERVED]
PART 509 - SWITZERLAND (§§ 509.101 - 509.121)
PARTS 510-512 [RESERVED]
PART 513 - IRELAND (§§ 513.2 - 513.11)
PART 514 - FRANCE (§§ 514.1 - 514.22)
PARTS 515-520 [RESERVED]
PART 521 - DENMARK (§§ 521.101 - 521.117)
PARTS 522-599 [RESERVED]

[SquatloosianTroll]

Part 515-520 seems to have been repealed and set to reserve status.

But here are the documents in reference to Part 519:

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/internat ... -documents

UPDATE: The Canadian Tax Treaty expired in 1993.

[SquatloosianTroll]

Sec 931. Income from sources within possessions of the United States.

(a) General rule. In the case of individual citizens of the United States, gross income means only gross income from sources within the United States if the conditions of both paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) are satisfied:
(1) 3-year period. If 80 percent or more of the gross income of such citizen... was derived from sources within a possession of the United States; and
(2) Trade or business. If 50 percent or more of his gross income ... was derived from the active conduct of a trade or business within a possession of the United States either on his own account or as an employee or agent of another


26 U.S. Code § 931 - Income from sources within Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands

US Code

Notes

IRS Rulings

prev | next

(a) General rule In the case of an individual who is a bona fide resident of a specified possession during the entire taxable year, gross income shall not include—

(1) income derived from sources within any specified possession, and

(2) income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business by such individual within any specified possession.

(b) Deductions, etc. allocable to excluded amounts not allowable

An individual shall not be allowed—

(1) as a deduction from gross income any deductions (other than the deduction under section 151, relating to personal exemptions), or

(2) any credit,
properly allocable or chargeable against amounts excluded from gross income under this section.

(c) Specified possession
For purposes of this section, the term “specified possession” means Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

(d) Employees of the United States
Amounts paid for services performed as an employee of the United States (or any agency thereof) shall be treated as not described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a).

[The Observer]

So, or more specifically, so what???

I don't think you will get an answer to that, since SquatTroll is now just spamming citations and statutes without any narrative to explain why we should "care about" his posts. There is certainly nothing coherent here, nor logic, reason or common sense that would justify his position. This is quickly approaching word-salad territory. The fact that he is now bringing up the Brushaber and Pollock cases definitely proves he is getting his tax education from tax protester sites and has no idea about the legal status of these cases and how they are related to the history of the 16th amendment.

[notorial dissent]

So, or more specifically, so what???

I don't think you will get an answer to that, since SquatTroll is now just spamming citations and statutes without any narrative to explain why we should "care about" his posts. There is certainly nothing coherent here, nor logic, reason or common sense that would justify his position. This is quickly approaching word-salad territory. The fact that he is now bringing up the Brushaber and Pollock cases definitely proves he is getting his tax education from tax protester sites and has no idea about the legal status of these cases and how they are related to the history of the 16th amendment.

Do I look like I was expecting anything different??? As to caring about his posts, meh, my orange cat cares more and isn't even aware of the discussion.

As you point out, he is unearthing the long dead and discarded, which is what I was expecting next, and you are equally right, he hasn't clue one as to what he is regurgitating. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and the hallmark of the true TPignoramus, which is what we have here.

[wserra]

I'm not 3 years old lol. But to be fair some of you are attacking my character which is ad hominem. Where and why do I deserve that?

Because you act as though you're three years old. Even when you're not cursing.

The latest examples: all of your current posts save one (a simple quote of an irrelevant statute) are nothing but cut-and-pastes. Your source was tax-freedom.com, the site of a particularly dumb TP aptly named Tom Scambos. Since those posts obviously contained neither original research nor thought, you may well be unaware of who that it is.

Several years ago, Scambos decided that he didn't have to comply with an IRS summons, even after the IRS brought suit to compel compliance. 07-mc-11 (VAWD). I can see why Randall might like Scambos, since in his opposition papers he uses the ridiculous "taxable activities" claim that Randall espouses:

I am not now, nor at any time over the last 20 years have I been engaged in any activities that are subject to any indirect federal tax, or that would require that I keep any books and records for government inspection. I have never sold any alcohol, tobacco, firearms . . .

He throws in numerous other equally-ridiculous arguments, of course. One is hardly enough.

The District Court found Scambos' arguments "utterly frivolous and without legal merit", and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. You then quote him chapter and verse.

No more lengthy cut-and-pastes. Try original thought.

[Famspear]

Troll wrote:

The 1954 version of the United States Code shows a footnote for Section 61. The footnote reads:

"Source: Sec. 22(a), 1939 Code, substantially unchanged"

Actually, no. Statutes, as enacted, generally do not show "footnotes." To be precise, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as actually signed into law by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, and as published in the United States Statutes at Large, does not contain a "footnote" to section 61.

A publication of the title 26 of the United States Code -- which is what you referenced -- may or may not include a footnote, but such a footnote is not part of the actual statute itself.

For some reason the footnote was dropped when the law was recodified in 1986.

No, the footnote was never part of the statute itself.

Now, being able to research the source of a law is very important in determining how that law is supposed to be properly applied. Without a review of the source materials ....

Bingo!


And, trying to appear to be doing legal "research" without having had law school training in how to do legal research will result in the kinds of errors you are making Troll.

You are simply copying and pasting materials and you are including the same arguments I have seen over and over again for the past twelve years. (Actually, I have been studying people like you and your arguments for about eighteen years, but I've been doing it much more intensively over the past twelve years or so.)

[Famspear]

when the law was recodified in 1986.

Contrary to popular belief, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was not recodified as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA-86), signed into law by President Reagan on October 22, 1986, the '54 Code was renamed as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986." There were numerous changes to the Code made by the TRA-86, but there was no recodification.

By contrast, the 1954 Code was indeed a recodification of the tax law found in the 1939 Code.

"Recodification" generally means a complete re-organization of a code, with a completely new numbering system for sections, etc. That did not happen with the TRA-86.