Challenge to diller72

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Challenge to diller72

Post by Cpt Banjo »

Dear diller72:

I seem to recall that you joined the Quatloos board just before the server crash over here. In the unfortunate event that your registration was zapped by the crash, I wanted to pass along an answer to a question you raised some time back on the LH forum and to challenge you to discuss it with your fellow CtC’ers.

Back in March someone posted a question on the LH forum about using CTC to avoid the estate tax, to which you replied:
Very interesting question. If income taxes cannot be direct federal taxes without apportionment, the same must hold true for estate and gift taxes. (With these taxes, the state seems to be trying to force people to hang onto their assets until death, when the act of transferring them creates a window of opportunity for snatching goodies from the bereaved during their period of greatest distraction.) But if these taxes are federally-imposed indirect taxes then, where is the associated privilege? How can these taxes be sustained as legal and Constitutional? Even if a pro-tax advocate takes the esoteric position that an estate tax can't violate the property rights of the deceased because dead people no longer have any natural rights, this rationale could obviously not be applied to objections regarding the gift tax, which seems just another variant of "income" tax. What is the equivalent anchor here to "trade or business"?
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=318

Another poster then claimed that there is a federal and state “privilege” involved in the transmission of property at death (incidentally, he was wrong – the probate process, including laws dealing with the requirements for a valid will and laws providing where one’s property goes if one dies without a will, is purely a matter of state law). You then responded:
That makes a certain amount of sense to me. [Disclaimer: this of course doesn't necessarily guarantee an explanation to be either true or the whole story.] However, that still doesn't explain the nature of gift taxes. These also must actually cover only excise taxable transactions, but does anyone know where the definitional lynchpin [sic] here?
Regrettably, no further response to your inquiry was posted.

Your puzzlement is understandable, considering your unfortunate acceptance of Hendrickson’s false premise that an excise must involve the exercise of a federal privilege and your insistence on there being an “excise taxable transaction”. But this is not and never has been the law, and I hope the following will help you understand why.

The constitutional basis for the gift tax was explained in Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), where the Supreme Court stated:
Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601, this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.

It is a tax laid only upon the exercise of a single one of those powers incident to ownership, the power to give the property owned to another. Under this statute all the other rights and powers which collectively constitute property or ownership may be fully enjoyed free of the tax. So far as the constitutional power to tax is concerned, it would be difficult to state any intelligible distinction, founded either in reason or upon practical considerations of weight, between a tax upon the exercise of the power to give property inter vivos and the disposition of it by legacy, upheld in Knowlton v. Moore, supra, the succession tax in Scholey v. Rew, supra, the tax upon the manufacture and sale of colored oleomargarine in McCray v. United States, supra, the tax upon sales of grain upon an exchange in Nicol v. Ames, supra, the tax upon sales of shares of stock in Thomas v. United States, supra, the tax upon the use of foreign built yachts in Billings v. United States, supra, the tax upon the use of carriages in Hylton v. United States, supra; compare Veazie Bank v. Fenno, supra, 545, Thomas v. United States, supra, 370. (emphasis added)
You can read the entire case here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 0&page=124

Please note that the Court never talks about “privilege” in characterizing the gift tax as an excise (in fact, the word doesn’t even appear in the majority opinion), and there's no search for an "equivalent anchor to 'trade or business'". Why? Because that’s not the “definitional linchpin” (to use your phrase) of an excise. While an excise may involve the exercise of a federal privilege, it doesn’t have to; it can reach the exercise of a single power over property incident to ownership (such as Mr. Bromley’s gifts) that doesn’t involve a privilege at all. In the context of the income tax, it can even reach the taxation of income resulting from the conduct of an activity that's illegal, which is the exact opposite of a privilege. See James v. U.S., 366 U.S. 213 (1961) and the cases cited therein.

I formally challenge you and the rest of the LH members to explain the discrepancy between what Hendrickson says an excise is and what the Supreme Court says it is -- that is, if Hendrickson will let you. I doubt that he will, so if his muzzle feels too tight for you on LH you’re more than welcome to discuss it here. Unlike Hendrickson, the folks here aren’t so insecure as to censor people who post a theory they disagree with.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
rachel

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by rachel »

Its funny you bring this issue up because this is whats going on with email for a couple of days now.
George you are very very confused,
Nows the time for you and Pete to prove your side. If Hendrickson cracked the code by looking at definitions then be my guest to analyz Black's 6th edition definition of "privilege" the same way.
This is an email debate and not a court. Pete can jump in at any time to prove his CtC theory, without repercussion, that we are all looked upon as 3401(c) employee's because of mischaractorization from some sort of "privileged" activity.
George at any time show me one (1) example using charactoristics found in the definition of "privilege" that government employee's possess or enjoy that nongovernment employee's dont.


"PRIVILEGE: A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of others citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power of exemption. A particular right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.


Can you, or Pete can step in for you, in the sense of what Pete portray's in CtC give any bona-fide examples using "particular benefit", "advantage", "extraordinary or exceptional power of exemption", "right", "franchise", "immunity" or "power" that would prove government employee's are enjoying that nongovernment employee's cant?

Before you attempt to answer, if you can George, I remind you of what Pete posts just above "privilege" on Losthorizons that sets the theory he's portraying.

"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."
United States Supreme Court, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

So if CtC revolves around the corner stone of "privilege" then prove government workers are enjoying an excise by possessing whats based in the definition of 'privilege" that nongovernment workers cant posses or enjoy.
I want to see this because if you or Pete cannot give an actual boni-fide provable nonconspiracy answer thats black and white then Pete is wrong in his theory that "privilege" means working for the government as a government 3401(c) employee. Sections 5USC 552a(a)2, 5USc 552a(a)13 with 5USC 552a(a)12 proves Pete Hendrickson is not understanding the law as its written and is causing unsuspected people to suffer $5,000.00 penalties for following bad advice based on personal interpretations.
I want to know this because as the law explains in chapter 21 its the employee working for 3121(a) 'wages" who starts the requirement of filing information returns after applying for a ssn for such 3121 'wages". The employer is the one stuck paying an excise tax thats imposed at section 3111 because of such employee wanting government social security benefits. If the employee didnt wish to make 3121(a) "wages" for Social Security benefit purposes the imposition of the 3101 social security tax on the employee is negated and the employer is then not required to apply for the TIN to report 3121 "wages" on a w2 for the employee or pay the 3111 tax either.
Have at it Mutter and be my guest to explain "privilege", but beware you are probably going need to review chapter 21 with sections 3101 and 3111 in particular to come to a clean answer.
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Dezcad »

How soon until the next server crash? Or hard drive failure?
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Cpt Banjo »

I'm curious -- why is this being discussed via email and not on the LH forum? Has Pete refused to allow it to be debated publicly?
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Quixote »

"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."
United States Supreme Court, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
Apparently both sides accept that citation as accurate. That statement does not appear in the opinion in Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. What the court actually wrote was "the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges." The phrase "such taxes" did not refer to excises in general, but rather excises on the exercise of the privilege to operate as a corporation. The Court has never held that excises can be imposed only on privileges.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by webhick »

Well, it looks like diller has re-registered, so it's only a matter of time before he or she responds.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by LPC »

Quixote wrote:The Court has never held that excises can be imposed only on privileges.
Quite the opposite:

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.” Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 580-1 (1937) (footnote omitted).

Tax protesters often get somewhat apoplectic over that quote, and accuse me of "lying" by not talking about what the case was "really about." And yet there is absolutely no reason to believe that the court did not mean what it said.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Cpt Banjo »

webhick wrote:Well, it looks like diller has re-registered, so it's only a matter of time before he or she responds.
All I hear are crickets.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
Leftcoaster

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Leftcoaster »

I believe the original thread was brought back to life...
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Quixote »

Leftcoaster wrote:I believe the original thread was brought back to life...
And Diller72 hasn't addressed that issue, or any other for that matter, on that thread either.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Leftcoaster

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Leftcoaster »

Should we rename him Dillertante?
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Imalawman »

Back on subject, it is interesting that Diller did not even attempt to respond to any of our questions or challenges. At least Bulton would do that (even though wrong). I gave him credit for interacting and attempting to answer questions. Diller doesn't even seem capable of trying to answer our questions.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Cpt Banjo »

As long as he buys into the bogus premise that all excises must involve the exercise of federal privileges, it will be impossible for him to make any kind of rational response.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
jg
Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by jg »

A recent thread illustrates the dilemna of diller72 and the lostheads:
diller72 wrote:...Participating in this thread and reading Admin's post has left me disoriented. I'd thought I had the scheme down cold, but now see that I was never quite on the same page as Pete after all. I had equated taxable activity to Federal privilege (okay so far) but that in turn to receiving compensation from the Federal government or an artificial entity created by it. The status of the payor would govern the legal character of the transaction, in other words. I must confess that I haven't been able to "grok" a definition of Federal privilege that depends on the activity of the recipient. Examples of taxable activity where the payor is a non-Federal entity and converse examples of non-taxable activity where the payor is a Federal entity might help me understand and internalize this paradigm-shift.

The upside to such a new perspective, however, is that it may help clarify the circumstances under which the still-mysterious earnings of people like Springer could have been correctly characterized as income during that precedent-setting first incarnation of the "income tax"
the post referenced by diller72 included:
Forum Admin wrote:After reading through this thread, I decided to add some clarifying material to the FAQ item copied above. That updated item now reads as follows:

Q2. What about goods and services (other than as an "employee" or "trade or business") that are sold to, and paid for by (or on behalf of), a federal agency, federal instrumentality, or federal (or federally-controlled) corporation?

A. The taxability of any given receipt to the recipient is a consequence of the legal character of the associated activity engaged in by the recipient, not that of the payor. A simple rule of thumb might be as follows: If the sale of any particular good or service to a non-federal entity would not be taxable, then the sale of that same good or service to a federal entity would also not be taxable. The converse would also be true: If the sale of any particular good or service to a non-federal entity would be taxable, then the sale of that same good or service to a federal entity would also be taxable. (The sale of services as a formal civil servant is, of course, an exception to this general rule, as would be any other economic exchange with the federal government in which the application of the tax to the proceeds is an explicit condition of the sale.)

If, for instance, a plumber who is not a member of the civil service is called upon to do work for a federal entity (due to emergency and the immediate unavailability of a federally-employed counterpart, perhaps), there is nothing inherent in that relationship that makes the plumber's activity taxable. In this relationship, the plumber and the United States are just two independent economic actors making an exchange. On the other hand, an otherwise private business that secures property devoted to economic activity by way of an exercise of the federal power of eminent domain, or conducts economic activity through the use of land owned outright by the federal government, would potentially be taxable in regard to these activities (I say "potentially" because not everything that is taxable is actually taxed), even though the activity conducted would be undistinguished from that of purely private competitors in every other respect.

Similarly, a provider of services to a private-sector customer whose payment is merely facilitated by the federal government-- such as a patient whose payment to the provider is subsequently reimbursed by Medicare-- is not engaged in an inherently taxable activity thereby, while one who sells services due to, or involving, an agreement to seek reimbursement from the federal government on a patient's behalf, on the other hand, may be-- depending on the terms of the agreement.


The material posted at http://www.losthorizons.com/appendix.htm#Professions is also relevant to the subject of this thread...

onehope, you should carefully read through http://www.losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf . That document offers alternative versions of certain material in CtC, and may be helpful to your understanding of certain key aspects of the federal tax structure, its inherent limitations, and the consequent nature of the "income" tax.
The premise that all excises must involve the exercise of federal privileges apparently makes it impossible not only for him, but for Hendrickson as well, to make any kind of rational, or even intelligible, response.
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Quixote »

The premise that all excises must involve the exercise of federal privileges apparently makes it impossible not only for him, but for Hendrickson as well, to make any kind of rational, or even intelligible, response.
I think that's one difference between Diller72 and John Bulten. Bulten knew all along that CTC consists of smoke and mirrors. As long as he avoided discussion of the fundamental flaws in CTC, Bulten could discuss irrelevancies, such as what IRC 3401 may or may not say, for hours. Diller72 seems to think there is something behind CTC and may be waking up to the truth that there isn't.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by fortinbras »

CaptainKickback wrote:If some retard like Diller72 wants to follow the teachings of another failed, loser retard, then f*ck him.
You really should express yourself. Don't hold back.
(Would I be right is guessing that you're not in the diplomatic corps?)
Leftcoaster

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Leftcoaster »

fortinbras wrote:
CaptainKickback wrote:If some retard like Diller72 wants to follow the teachings of another failed, loser retard, then f*ck him.
You really should express yourself. Don't hold back.
(Would I be right is guessing that you're not in the diplomatic corps?)
He is actually, just in the Von Clausewitzian branch thereof... :wink:
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by webhick »

CaptainKickback wrote:Now you're mad? Okay, get the mats set up and let's wrestle....."
So...you have a disturbing desire to put on colorful spandex undies and engage in homo-erotic activities with leaders of foreign countries? :)
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by Cpt Banjo »

CaptainKickback wrote:The WWE and TNA are more of the spandex/homoerotic type of "wrestling" (read entertainment with no actual wrestling skills required). Gigantic difference.
If Lou Thesz were around today, he'd cripple any of the steroid-filled yahoos who call themselves wrestlers.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
SteveSy

Re: Challenge to diller72

Post by SteveSy »

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.” Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 580-1 (1937) (footnote omitted).
Of course the footnote is omitted....Look up all the State laws they use to support that statement and the cases involving them. ALL refer to taxing the privilege whether it be a license to pursue the occupation or a business license. In fact just two years prior the Washington State Supreme Court found that an excise income tax was unconstitutional because it did not involve a privilege Amazingly, not really, the SC cites the Washington law to support the statement made above.

LPC knows this because he has been repeatedly shown this....but that won't stop him from misusing the quote over and over again.

I've been gone for months and I come back and see the same old tired arguments and sugically cut quotes are still used....and you claim the Tax protesters are misleading people....lol