Fuzzrabbbit Speaks

[silversopp]

I don't think they can--
constitutionally. But when has that ever stopped them? I don't think the Founders had this federal gov't in mind. I really and truly DON'T.

The Founders were not in agreement over what the federal government should be like. The Constitution does not reflect the opinion of "The Founders" but rather a compromise that the majority of them worked out. There were arguments over what the Constitution meant from day one.

[silversopp]

He thinks taxable income is subject to Constitutional exemption, reflected in 861.

I can't find anything in the Constitution that exempts certain income from taxation.

[LPC]

Cap'n Banjo:

The law couldn't be clearer that Congress can tax intrastate activities,

We're concerned with citizens here. The commerce must cross international boundaries. Sure, they can tax intrastate commerce--for FOREIGNERS. NOT us. THAT is the argument. OK?

Left-handed foreigners. Congress can tax only left-handed foreigners.

The Constitution is very clear on that.

[Cpt Banjo]

Cap'n Banjo:

The law couldn't be clearer that Congress can tax intrastate activities,

We're concerned with citizens here. The commerce must cross international boundaries. Sure, they can tax intrastate commerce--for FOREIGNERS. NOT us. THAT is the argument. OK?

Son, that is one of the most inane arguments I've seen in ages, and that isn't even what Larken the Loonie is saying. I'm through wasting bandwidth trying to educate you, for you are hopeless and can go wallow in your TP ignorance forever.

[LPC]

We're concerned with citizens here. The commerce must cross international boundaries. Sure, they can tax intrastate commerce--for FOREIGNERS. NOT us. THAT is the argument. OK?

Left-handed foreigners. Congress can tax only left-handed foreigners.

The Constitution is very clear on that.

I know it's The 13th, Friday--what is that put you in a bad mood today??

That was one of my good moods.

I mean, seriously. Your claims are contradicted by the words of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and every Supreme Court decision in the history of the United States. AND they don't make any sense.

And you've rejected out of hand every attempt at reason.

So we've left logic and history, and are now into sarcasm and ridicule.

[Paul]

And you, fuzzy, have never responded to my post.

[Paul]

Try looking at my post from a few minutes ago on the other current thread.

[LPC]

LPC:

So we've left logic and history, and are now into sarcasm and ridicule.

Well, you still haven't addressed the two objections I made to your "The Shyster Spews" --"Tax Lawyer" post...

I have no idea what "objections" you mean.

And I don't understand how your "objections" to that post could have anything to do with section 861 when 861 (and Larken Rose) were never mentioned?

[Brian Rookard]

Cap'n Banjo:

The law couldn't be clearer that Congress can tax intrastate activities,

We're concerned with citizens here. The commerce must cross international boundaries. Sure, they can tax intrastate commerce--for FOREIGNERS. NOT us. THAT is the argument. OK?

So they can intrastate commerce ... but somehow this is restricted to when "foreigners" engage in intrastate commerce ... and yet, if you're a citizen, somehow they can tax your foreign commerce (but not your domestic intrastate commerce).

So, you basically admit that they can tax intrastate commerce ... but not if you're a citizen. How convenient. Now, could you point to something in the constitution which supports such a distinction as to *who* is doing the commerce.

That is ludicrous (not to mention being thoroughly inconsistent).

[LPC]

Dan,

I have no idea what "objections" you mean.

You moved the post. Didn't you read it?

Yes, I read it. And I have no idea what objections you mean.

[Nikki]

Fuzzy, just like every single tax evasion guru, ignores the most telling argument against any and all of their theories.

Let's assume that the convoluted misreading of §861 actually does end up in exempting the domestic income of Americans.

What would be the first two things to happen, in extremely rapid order?

1 - every single high-income taxpayer, with small armies of tax accountants and lawyers at their beck and call, would file returns taking advantage of the loophole and amended returns to do the same for the past three years.

2 - congress would become aware og the sudden drop in tax revenue and would fix the leak.

Fuzzy: How do you explain that neither 1 nor 2 has happened? Are you, Schiff, Rose, and all the other evaders so much smarter and better educated in tax law than the people who actually know what they're talking about?

[Brian Rookard]

Brian,

So they can intrastate commerce ... but somehow this is restricted to when "foreigners" engage in intrastate commerce ... and yet, if you're a citizen, somehow they can tax your foreign commerce (but not your domestic intrastate commerce).

So, you basically admit that they can tax intrastate commerce ... but not if you're a citizen. How convenient. Now, could you point to something in the constitution which supports such a distinction as to *who* is doing the commerce.

That is ludicrous (not to mention being thoroughly inconsistent).

I don't know why Larken said no tax on intrastate commerce in his TI report (Dan brought it up). He must have meant for citizens. I know that is what he believes.
Article 1, Section 8, clause 3, BY OMMISSION. Regulation of trade "...with foreign nations, among the Indian tribes, and with the several states." No "within" states. Amendment 10 slams the door.

It is "among" the States, and the Supreme Court has definitively stated that this means they regulate such commerce within the States. A similar argument was made loooonnnnngggg ago ... and rejected ...

But, in regulating commerce with foreign nations, the power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several States. It would be a very useless power, if it could not pass those lines. The commerce of the United States with foreign nations, is that of the whole United States. Every district has a right to participate in it. The deep streams which penetrate our country in every direction, pass through the interior of almost every State in the Union, and furnish the means of exercising this right. If Congress has the power to regulate it, that power must be exercised whenever the subject exists. If it exists within the States, if a foreign voyage may commence or terminate at a port within a State, then the power of Congress may be exercised within a State.

This principle is, if possible, still more clear, when applied to commerce 'among the several States.' They either join each other, in which case they are separated by a mathematical line, or they are remote from each other, in which case other States lie between them. What is commerce 'among' them; and how is it to be conducted? Can a trading expedition between two adjoining States, commence and terminate outside of each? And if the trading intercourse be between two States remote from each other, must it not commence in one, terminate in the other, and probably pass through a third? Commerce among the States must, of necessity, be commerce with the States. In the regulation of trade with the Indian tribes, the action of the law, especially when the constitution was made, was chiefly within a State. The power of Congress, then, whatever it may be, must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of the several States. The sense of the nation on this subject, is unequivocally manifested by the provisions made in the laws for transporting goods, by land, between Baltimore and Providence, between New- York and Philadelphia, and between Philadelphia and Baltimore.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1, 195(1824)

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has been clear that the the power to tax is not limited by the 10th Amendment or the Commerce Clause.

You need to quit reading the tax protestor garbage. At some point in time the arguments they have raised have been addressed by the Supreme Court in one case or another.

[Nikki]

Nikki:

Let's assume that the convoluted misreading of §861 actually does end up in exempting the domestic income of Americans.

What would be the first two things to happen, in extremely rapid order?

1 - every single high-income taxpayer, with small armies of tax accountants and lawyers at their beck and call, would file returns taking advantage of the loophole and amended returns to do the same for the past three years.

2 - congress would become aware og the sudden drop in tax revenue and would fix the leak.

Fuzzy: How do you explain that neither 1 nor 2 has happened? Are you, Schiff, Rose, and all the other evaders so much smarter and better educated in tax law than the people who actually know what they're talking about?

I understand totally. This is why, of course, any judge who ever even thinks of allowing a hearing to 861 would be inviting trouble like he's never dreamed. Kind of explains a lot of the INERTIA here...

So, your theory, now, is that Rose's §861 delusion is perfectly good law, but there's just a massive conspiracy to suppress it.

When logic and facts fail, claim conspiracy.

[LPC]

You say on FAQ that we want 861 to apply to us and not to apply to us as it suits us. NO WE DON'T. It DOES. It DOES NOT apply to our INCOME.

That's exactly what I mean. You claim that section 861 *must* be applied, but then you claim it doesn't apply.

And why doesn't it apply to your income? Section 861(a) says that compensation for services performed within the United States shall be considered income from a source within the United States. Why doesn't that apply to your income?

And section 861(b) says that taxable income from sources within the United States is determined by taking gross income from sources within the United States (such as compensation for services performed in the United States) and subtracting appropriate deductions. Why don't you determine your taxable income from sources within the United States in that way?

I really don't see how you can believe in Larken's argument when you obviously don't understand it.

And you say 861 is for determining geographical location of income from FOREIGN income only.

I never said that.

[LPC]

Article 1, Section 8, clause 3, BY OMMISSION. Regulation of trade "...with foreign nations, among the Indian tribes, and with the several states." No "within" states. Amendment 10 slams the door.

It is "among" the States, and the Supreme Court has definitively stated that this means they regulate such commerce within the States.

The argument that Congress can't tax what it can't regulate actually doesn't do tax protesters any good unless they also reject most modern commerce clause decisions of the Supreme Court.

After all, the Fair Labor Standards Act regulates the minimum wages and other terms of compensation of most Americans. If Congress can regulate wages, then Congress can also tax wages, so tax protesters have to reject the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act and all other labor legislation enacted since the 1930s.

[LPC]

I don't know why Larken said no tax on intrastate commerce in his TI report (Dan brought it up).

As I've said, it's obvious you don't really understand his argument.

[Brian Rookard]

Article 1, Section 8, clause 3, BY OMMISSION. Regulation of trade "...with foreign nations, among the Indian tribes, and with the several states." No "within" states. Amendment 10 slams the door.

It is "among" the States, and the Supreme Court has definitively stated that this means they regulate such commerce within the States.

The argument that Congress can't tax what it can't regulate actually doesn't do tax protesters any good unless they also reject most modern commerce clause decisions of the Supreme Court.

Now Dan, you know Fuzzy can only handle one small thought at a time.

And it doesn't even need to be modern commerce clause decisions. You can look at the License Tax Cases way back in the mid 1800's as basis for all the modern decisions.

But Fuzzy, Dan is right ... Larken's argument comes down to "If Congress can't regulate it under the commerce clause, then Congress can't tax it" ... and that argument has been rejected for over 140 years. See the following cases:

The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)

Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

McCray v. U.S., 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

U.S. v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919)

Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332 (1928)

Sozinsky v. U.S., 300 U.S. 506 (1937)

U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42 (1950)

U.S. v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953)

[LPC]

You say on FAQ that we want 861 to apply to us and not to apply to us as it suits us. NO WE DON'T. It DOES. It DOES NOT apply to our INCOME.

That's exactly what I mean. You claim that section 861 *must* be applied, but then you claim it doesn't apply.

And why doesn't it apply to your income? Section 861(a) says that compensation for services performed within the United States shall be considered income from a source within the United States. Why doesn't that apply to your income?

Because it doesn't say it does. (Citizen, or something similar)

Well, now you're just making up new rules as you go along.

You say the law needs to identify "sources," and I point out that section 861 identifies "sources." Now you say that section 861 needs to say *specifically* that it is determining sources for citizens? If I find a part of section 861 that specifically says it applies to citizens, what's to stop you from claiming that it also needs to specify whether it applies to right-handed taxpayers? Or that it applies in states with names that start with vowels?

Fortunately, judges can't just make up shit like you do. Judges have to go by what the law actually says.

Too bad you don't appreciate the value of that.

And section 861(b) says that taxable income from sources within the United States is determined by taking gross income from sources within the United States (such as compensation for services performed in the United States) and subtracting appropriate deductions. Why don't you determine your taxable income from sources within the United States in that way?

Because only the regs. say WHOSE income.

Liar. The regs say no such thing.

And you say 861 is for determining geographical location of income from FOREIGN income only.

I never said that.

Now here is an infrequent occurrence of a mistake on my part. I meant to say "location of income for FOREIGNERS only."

Never said that, either.

THAT is something you DO say on your FAQ page

Now you're lying.

[LPC]

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), this thread is now too long, and I'm locking it.