Submarine Veteran Losthead Moderator "weasel-wording"

[jg]

Please exercise caution with liquids when you view the discourse by Submarine veteran at http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=462

An example:

Taxpayers also may not file tax returns showing no income and then claim a refund for withheld income taxes.

Of course not! We're not claiming a "refund for withheld taxes" we submit a claim for money improperly withheld in anticipation of a potential tax liability. Until the tax is assessed, the money withheld is not "tax" it is merely "money". It is only through our self-assessment that we translate the "money" withheld into a "tax" contribution. This is the main reason they need us to sign the 1040 form! When we sign the 1040 we have declared that we owe the tax and the money that is supposedly held in escrow becomes "tax" money. This is the typical weasel-wording of these people and educated people understand the semantic games being played.

[LPC]

Just another pig-ignorant, know-it-all, blow-hard, sea-lawyering, sqiddley-diddley.

For once, CK may be guilty of understatement.

[ASITStands]

Just another pig-ignorant, know-it-all, blow-hard, sea-lawyering, sqiddley-diddley.

For once, CK may be guilty of understatement.

I wish he'd just tell us how he really feels instead of beating around the bush.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Just another pig-ignorant, know-it-all, blow-hard, sea-lawyering, sqiddley-diddley. :angrybird:

I usually have respect for submariners--the training they go through just to set foot on the boat is demanding, and then they have to learn even more to earn their dolphins.

I wonder if he's really a submariner or if he spent his entire enlistment as an NQP.

[Submarine Veteran]

Good day to all you who profess to believe that a direct tax on the "wages of labour" as was stated by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations" is an okay thing. I do notice that not one factual error was raised about my statement, merely slanders against me and what I stand for.

[Demosthenes]

Welcome to Quatloos, SV.

[Dr. Caligari]

Pursuant to the current law, in the case of natural persons, the only person authorized to assess my "tax" is me. See Section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862.

The Revenue Act of 1862 is not "current law." It was repealed more than 120 years ago.

[Agent Observer]

Sad. I guess the Navy doesn't teach the concepts of "service before self" or "selflessness." I can assure you that the United States Air Force Academy did. Greedy and delusional former military members like you give us all a bad name, especially when you wear your "service" on your sleeve. As to your education, you allege to have checked the proverbial boxes by attending the courses, but you fail in the final test of life where you should be applying what you've learned. The only thing you've succeeded at is elevating yourself above all else and justifying it through willful ignorance.

Bravo. You fail.

[Submarine Veteran]

Pursuant to the current law, in the case of natural persons, the only person authorized to assess my "tax" is me. See Section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862.

The Revenue Act of 1862 is not "current law." It was repealed more than 120 years ago.

Mahlzeit Herr Docktor!

Please identify exactly when it was "repealed" as my research shows no such thing. It may have been revised in the "code" but I have been unable to find a repeal of the underlying Statute at Large.

[Submarine Veteran]

Sad. I guess the Navy doesn't teach the concepts of "service before self" or "selflessness." I can assure you that the United States Air Force Academy did. Greedy and delusional former military members like you give us all a bad name, especially when you wear your "service" on your sleeve. As to your education, you allege to have checked the proverbial boxes by attending the courses, but you fail in the final test of life where you should be applying what you've learned. The only thing you've succeeded at is elevating yourself above all else and justifying it through willful ignorance.

Bravo. You fail.

How foolish of you and how ignorant to equate constitutional order with "service before self" or "selflessness" - It is clear you had hypoxia for all your years in Colorado Springs.

[LPC]

The 16th amendment, which did not convey any new power of taxation (only if you believe the USSC),

The 16th Amendment did not confer any new power of taxation because Congress already had the power to tax incomes. The Supreme Court stated that Congress possessed "the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation" from "the beginning." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916).

it merely declared that all "passive income" was taxable on every American from whatever source.

The word "passive" does not appear in the 16th Amendment, and so your use of quotation marks is misleading.

The key here is that it does not include, and never was intended to include the "wages of labour" of the average American

An argument that the Supreme Court rejected in 1916 and has rejected repeatedly since, and for which you have no historical, legislative, or judicial evidence whatsoever.

[Demosthenes]

Please identify exactly when it was "repealed" as my research shows no such thing. It may have been revised in the "code" but I have been unable to find a repeal of the underlying Statute at Large.

It was repealed in 1872 and replaced with a system of tariffs.

[Agent Observer]

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Clearly, you've forsworn that oath and adopted an oath to subvert it.

You fail again. Remember that, when the maelstrom of financial ruin crashes down on you and your family, the fault is your own.

[Quixote]

I look forward to the occasional discourse as I see fit.

Translation: When he finds himself backed into a corner, he's outta here.

We're not claiming a "refund for withheld taxes" we submit a claim for money improperly withheld in anticipation of a potential tax liability.

There are two problems with that statement. First, it is demonstrably false. The few CTC returns posted on Lost Horizons that claim a refund all claim a credit for withheld income taxes. It is clear from discussions on the LH forum that the Forms 4852 sent with CTC returns all show an entry on line 7 f "Federal income tax withheld". So, yes, you are claiming a refund of withheld taxes. Or you're filing returns fraudulantly claiming credit for withheld taxes. Let us know which one.

Second, if your claim is not for an overpayment of tax resulting from excess withholding credit, you are making your claim against the wrong party. If the person who "withheld" the money is not your employer, you have a contract claim against that person for non-payment for services or a tort claim for conversion. Employers are immune from suit concerning income tax withheld. A non-employer would not be.

[Submarine Veteran]

Translation: When he finds himself backed into a corner, he's outta here.

Not at all, I find this amusing! I may leave when I get bored and, based on the flurry of immediate insults, this does not appear to be a group that can hold open and honest discussion.

There are two problems with that statement. First, it is demonstrably false. The few CTC returns posted on Lost Horizons that claim a refund all claim a credit for withheld income taxes. It is clear from discussions on the LH forum that the Forms 4852 sent with CTC returns all show an entry on line 7 f "Federal income tax withheld". So, yes, you are claiming a refund of withheld taxes. Or you're filing returns fraudulantly claiming credit for withheld taxes. Let us know which one.

Not so. We all know that there is no "tax" until there is an "assessment". The money withheld is based on the assumption that a liability exists and the money does not become a "tax" until it is assessed. I will leave you the exercise of finding those case citations.

Second, if your claim is not for an overpayment of tax resulting from excess withholding credit, you are making your claim against the wrong party. If the person who "withheld" the money is not your employer, you have a contract claim against that person for non-payment for services or a tort claim for conversion. Employers are immune from suit concerning income tax withheld. A non-employer would not be.

I do not claim an "overpayment" and the malinformation provided in Pub 15 and 15a is superbly worded so as to convince anyone paying anything to anyone else that it is "taxable income". All an informed American does is file a lawful return. As my pay for private sector labor is not "income" subject to a Title 26 tax, I am correcting the record and requesting a return of money improperly withheld in anticipation of a potential liability. No "taxable income" in excess of the statutory minimum, no "liability" is made.

[Cpt Banjo]

Good day to all you who profess to believe that a direct tax on the "wages of labour" as was stated by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations" is an okay thing.

The Supreme Court, in the Springer case, rejected the argument that Smith's definition of a direct tax controlled the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution.

The key here is that it does not include, and never was intended to include the "wages of labour" of the average American who, unlike the majority of you, is not exercising a privilege (working for the bloated Leviathan that attempts to perpetuate the fraud - or those that indirectly benefit from the perpetuation of the fraud - like good ole' Danny Boy).

Wages were taxed long before the 16th amendment, and no privilege was or is required. See the separate thread in which diller72, one of your fellow ctc'ers, was challenged to explain why he clings to the bogus theory that excises must involve federal privileges given that (a) the Supreme Court's definition of an excise doesn't require the notion of privileges at all, and (b) the Court has upheld the imposition of excises in countless cases in which no privilege was present. So far, neither he nor any other ctc'er has had the guts to debate this subject.

We await your return (unlike the practice at LH, you won't be censored here for daring to express a view that does not coincide with that of the administrators).

[Kimokeo]

The problem I see with most of these arguments is that one points to the law and states this is our interpretation. Then, they stand on their soapbox and claim the Constitution supports their belief.

However, the Constitution established the courts that determine what the law means.

Losing every case in the courts would say you haven't yet found a court to agree with you. Which means, your belief is still faulty according to the courts.

Please, take your case to court and win. Most of the gurus have lost there. Why can't they prove their theories are correct? They always lose.

Don't say the courts are wrong. The Constitution states the courts are legally correct. This is not an issue of right or wrong. It is an issue of legal or illegal, constitutional or not. The courts decide and then Congress can address it.

As of today, the claims are false.

Which do you wish to address next: IRC 6702 or IRC 6676. $5k or 20%.

[Submarine Veteran]

Please identify exactly when it was "repealed" as my research shows no such thing. It may have been revised in the "code" but I have been unable to find a repeal of the underlying Statute at Large.

It was repealed in 1872 and replaced with a system of tariffs.

Which page of the SAL would that be found on?

[Submarine Veteran]

The problem I see with most of these arguments is that one points to the law and states this is our interpretation. Then, they stand on their soapbox and claim the Constitution supports their belief.

However, the Constitution established the courts that determine what the law means.

Losing every case in the courts would say you haven't yet found a court to agree with you. Which means, your belief is still faulty according to the courts.

Please, take your case to court and win. Most of the gurus have lost there. Why can't they prove their theories are correct? They always lose.

Don't say the courts are wrong. The Constitution states the courts are legally correct. This is not an issue of right or wrong. It is an issue of legal or illegal, constitutional or not. The courts decide and then Congress can address it.

As of today, the claims are false.

Which do you wish to address next: IRC 6702 or IRC 6676. $5k or 20%.

Fear not, the suits are pending. Title 42 provides remedy.

[Bud Dickman]

SV wrote - I made E6(SS) four days after my 21st birthday

I served six years in the Navy during VN period, and was not eligible for E-6 because you needed six years in service to qualify for PO1. Were there special standards for the SS, or more bull....?