Submarine Veteran Losthead Moderator "weasel-wording"

[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Please identify exactly when it was "repealed" as my research shows no such thing.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It was repealed in 1872 and replaced with a system of tariffs.

Which page of the SAL would that be found on?

Hint: why don't you try reading the Revenue Acts of 1862 and 1864 first.

[Submarine Veteran]

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....?

Started as an E-3 through the Advanced Electronics Field - an initial 6 year commitment. Was an early candidate for E5 and E6 - Made E6 under 4. Was one of two people promoted Navy-wide out of 200+ candidates - There weren't too many Ballistic Missile Fire Control billets in the USN.

BTW - Why all the slander? Where is the original "bull" where this is "more"?

[Bud Dickman]

Was one of two people promoted Navy-wide out of 200+ candidates - There weren't too many Ballistic Missile Fire Control billets in the USN.

Which seems a contradiction, less billets fewer promotions.

[ASITStands]

Once upon a time, there were several discussions on the "old" Lost Horizons forum regarding Section 93, and other pertinent sections, of the Act of 1862, and subsequent Acts.

First of all, Pete Hendrickson is fond of citing to Section 86, as if to show an income tax was imposed on the salaries and pay of government workers only, while ignoring Section 90, which imposed a similar tax on the annual gains, profits and income of every person residing in the United States. The relevant language is as follows:

Sec. 90. And be it further enacted, That there shall be levied, collected, and paid annually, upon the annual gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any source whatever ...

And, while we're looking at other pertinent sections, take a look at Section 92, which placed a statutory limit on the taxes imposed by the Act of 1862 until June 30, 1863.

The Act of 1864 superseded the Act of 1862 but was not signed until June 30, 1864. However, it extended the taxes imposed under the Act of 1862 until June 30, 1870. Section 92 in the Act of 1862 became Section 119 in the Act of 1864.

The Act of 1872 did not continue an income tax. It imposed a series of tariffs and excises.

In the Act of 1864, Section 86 became "word-for-word" Section 123. Section 90 became Section 116. Section 93 was slightly altered and became Section 118.

Sec. 118. Provided, That any party, in his or her own behalf, or as guardian or trustee, as aforesaid, shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which shall be prescribed by the commissioner of internal revenue, that he or she was not possessed of an income of six hundred dollars, liable to be assessed according to the provisions of this act, or may declare that he or she has been assessed elsewhere in the same year for, and has paid an income duty under authority of the United States, and shall thereupon be exempt from income duty in said district; or, if the list or return of any party shall have been increased by the assistant assessor, in manner as aforesaid, such party may be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the amount of annual income, or the amount held in trust, as aforesaid, liable to be assessed, and the same, so declared, shall be received by such assistant assessor as true, and as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected, except that the deductions claimed in such cases shall not be made or allowed until approved by the assistant assessor. But any person feeling aggrieved by the decision of the assistant assessor in such cases, may appeal to the assessor of the district, and his decision thereon shall be final; and the form, time, and manner of proceedings shall be subject to rules and regulations to be prescribed by the commissioner of internal revenue.

Though slightly altered, it did not change the import of testimony under oath or affirmation. It remained substantially the same. The only hint is the disallowance of deductions.

However, in the Acts which followed, several changes occurred to Section 118 [Sec. 93] that substantially changed the concept of a return signed under oath or affirmation, as being a "final" word on the matter of assessment. Provision was made for examination.

For instance, Section 118 in the Act of 1865 read as follows:

Sec. 118. Provided, That any party, in his or her own behalf, or as guardian or trustee, shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which shall be prescribed by the commissioner of internal revenue, that he or she, or his ward or beneficiary, was not possessed of an income of six hundred dollars, liable to be assessed according to the provisions of this act; or may declare that he or she has been assessed and paid an income duty elsewhere in the same year, upon his or her gains and profits, as prescribed by law, and if the assistant assessor shall be satisfied of the truth of the declaration, shall thereupon be exempt from income duty in said district; or, if the list or return of any party shall have been increased by the assistant assessor, such party may exhibit his books and accounts, and be permitted to prove and declare, under oath or affirmation, the amount of annual income liable to be assessed; but such oaths and evidence shall not be considered as conclusive of the facts, and no deductions claimed in such cases shall be made or allowed until approved by the assistant assessor. Any person feeling aggrieved by the decision of the assistant assessor in such cases, may appeal to the assessor of the district, and his decision thereon, unless reversed by the commissioner of internal revenue, shall be final, and the form, time, and manner of proceedings shall be subject to rules and regulations to be prescribed by the commissioner of internal revenue.

Notice, instead of a declaration being treated as a "final" word on assessment, the taxpayer is now allowed to exhibit books and accounts to prove the declaration. Such oaths and evidence is no longer considered as conclusive proof of the facts, and deductions are not allowed until approved by the assistant assessor. Any person disagreeing may appeal.

Sounds like Examination to me. Sounds like someone other than the taxpayer is authorized to make an assessment, or otherwise, challenge the assessment made by the taxpayer.

What it certainly does is overturn or amend the provision of Section 93 in the Act of 1862 upon which Cracking the Code relies. A signed return is not the "final" word on assessment.

Predictably, Pete Hendrickson did not like the exposure. Shortly afterward, the poster was banned, and the "old" forum was taken down, ostensibly by a server failure.

Respectfully, your reliance upon Section 93 is misplaced.

[Submarine Veteran]

Was one of two people promoted Navy-wide out of 200+ candidates - There weren't too many Ballistic Missile Fire Control billets in the USN.

Which seems a contradiction, less billets fewer promotions.

One of the smallest rates in the USN but there were no E1-E3 billets. Do the math. 41 boats at that time, 6 per crew, two crews. All E4-E7. E8 and E9 were merged in with all other FTs. That single cycle had two E6 billets Navy-wide.

[Unknown Named Agent]

We all know that there is no "tax" until there is an "assessment".

Who is "we"?

“The answer made to this by counsel is that the debt was not due, or, at least, not payable, until the assessor has received and acted on the return made by the corporation. There is nothing in the statute which says this in terms. If it be sound it must be an implication, and we do not see how such an implication can arise. That such an assessment was not made long before was owing to the neglect of the company to make proper returns. Did that neglect make the taxes which should have been paid a year before any less a debt from that time? And can it be said they were not due at the time the statute says they should be paid, because the company failed to make the report which it was its duty to make?
If there could be any doubt upon this point, it was set at rest by the decision of this court in The Dollar Savings Bank v. United States (19 Wall. 227), where the same objection was taken to a suit to recover the tax. The court held explicitly that the obligation to pay the tax did not depend on an assessment made by any officer whatever, but that the facts being established on which the tax rested, the law made the assessment, and an action of debt could be maintained to recover it though no officer had made an assessment. So that, both on principle and authority, we are of opinion that the judgment for the sum received by the collector and not paid over, with interest, is right, and must be affirmed. ”

King v. United States, 99 U.S. 229, 233 (1878)

[grammarian44]

I agree with Kimokeo. Debating the constitutionality of the income tax is pointless in a forum that (1) has no power to determine what the Constitution means anyway; and (2) has no rules for interpretation that would rule out anyone's fanciful reading of the document or related cases. A sure sign of the pointlessness of the task is that we end up arguing about 150-year-old statutes and courts rulings--statutes and rulings that contemporary legislators and courts ignore altogether--as if they really mean something.

The facts are (1) if Congress believed that current law does not tax average Americans on wages, it could have EASILY clarified the law so as to stop the IRS from collecting any income taxes from such sources, but it has not done so; (2) if Congress wanted to get rid of the income tax altogether, it could EASILY do so at any time, but it has not done so; (3) if a court were to hold taxes on some or all wages unconstitutional, there would be enough votes in Congress and the state legislatures to change the Constitution to restore the tax in its current form, and this is what would happen; and (4) if enough of the American people disagreed with a tax on wages and with Congressional willingness to put up with the tax, they could EASILY vote in new members of Congress who oppose the tax, but this has not occurred.

The real reason the income tax is constitutional is ultimately that people WANT the tax. You can debate the subtleties of century-old cases all you want, but it won't change that simple fact.

[Kimokeo]

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

Then I must ask - what will be your answer if you win?
What will be your answer if you lose?

If you win, everyone in this country fill follow suit.

If you lose, will you abide by the law or choose to evade it?
You may appeal the decision and lose again.
You may appeal the SCOTUS and not be heard.
Once the courts have ruled against you, will you evade the law?

It's a simple question. If the law says no and you choose to break it, then the consequences should be expected. It won't come blindly to you. Will you inform your fellows not to pursue an avenue that results in tax evasion?

There are protests that are legitimate in reason that are also illegal. The choice to be incarcerated is foolish if there is a more practical choice.

Change the law. Run for office and make the law different. Make the law agree with your interpretation if the courts rule against you. I hardly doubt taxpayers in this country think they are not taxed enough. Certainly it would be a good platform for debate.

Understand that with tax money comes benefits the public wants, or at least desires, from their elected officials. Those benefits cost money. If you remove taxation, you'll need another source to pay the bills. If you can prove to the public such a change is possible - then go for it. I'd love to pay less in taxes. But, I'd like to see the welfare clause reduced in its abuse. Convince the public and you can convince the country. Convince a handful of people and enjoy obscurity.

[wserra]

Once the courts have ruled against you, will you evade the law?

Let's make it a little more specific. Assume that the Sixth Circuit rules against Hendrickson, and the Supreme Court denies cert. Will you then agree that he is wrong about the law? That's the question that caused Bulten to split rather than answer. It's a pretty simple question.

Beware of the consequences a "no" answer will have to a Cheek defense.

[Dr. Caligari]

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

Tax law is not the only thing you are mistaken about. Title 42 provides a remedy if state officials deprive you of your constitutional rights, but it does not authorize suits against federal officials.

[Dezcad]

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

"A pending suit" implies that they have already been filed but not yet reached a final disposition. So, in what courts and what case numbers do these pending suits have?

Or did you mean -"discussed", "drafted" or "imagined"?

[LPC]

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.

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.

This kind of sophomoric, chickens**t, word-weaseling is why the court entered a summary judgment against Hendrickson.

Money was taken from the payments to Hendrickson as a withholding of tax. The money was sent to the government as taxes withheld. The government received the money and credited it to Hendrickson as taxes withheld. Hendrickson applied for a refund of tax.

Trying to claim that what Hendrickson got was not a "tax refund" is just semantic tap-dancing without any substance.

[Quixote]

based on the flurry of immediate insults, this does not appear to be a group that can hold open and honest discussion.

At least open and honest discussions are not prohibited, as they are on the Lost Horizons forum.

The money withheld is based on the assumption that a liability exists and the money does not become a "tax" until it is assessed.

Wrong. Money never becomes a tax. The money withheld was payment of the withholding tax. It is explicitly asserted to be such on every CTC Form 4852. It is implicitly asserted to be such by every filer of a CTC return claiming a refund. Are you saying that you believe it is not withholding tax, but are willing to fraudulantly claim that it is on CTC returns in order to obtain a fraudulent IRC §31 credit?

I do not claim an "overpayment" ...

Perhaps you don't, perhaps you've never practiced what you preach. But every filer of a CTC refund claim does claim to have overpaid his taxes. He had to if he expected to get a refund, because IRS has no authority to refund payments that do not constitute 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.

You seem confused. Nothing I have written in this thread has anything to do with whether or not your income is gross income, what you erroneously refer to as "taxable income". We were discussing credits and payments. If a CTC filers had no tax withheld, as you insist they did not, and they never paid any estimated tax payments to the IRS, which none has ever claimed to have done, then they have neither payments nor credits to be refunded.

If you would like to try to explain why your income is excluded form gross income, feel free to do so (and folks will be glad to point out why you are wrong), but don't confuse taxes with credits.

[LPC]

We all know that there is no "tax" until there is an "assessment".

Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code is titled "Employment Taxes."

Chapter 24 (which is part of Subtitle C) is titled "Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages."

Section 3402 (which is part of both Chapter 24 and Subtitle C) is titled "Income tax collected at source."

Section 3402(a)(1) says that "Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax ...."

Section 31(a)(1), titled "Tax withheld on wages" states that "The amount withheld as tax under chapter 24" shall be allowed to the recipient of the income as a credit against income tax.

You say it's not a "tax," but the Internal Revenue Code says it is, and the Internal Revenue Code wins. It is imposed, deducted, withheld, and credited as a "tax."

And when it is refunded, it is a refund of a "tax."

[Quixote]

You say it's not a "tax," but the Internal Revenue Code says it is, and the Internal Revenue Code wins. It is imposed, deducted, withheld, and credited as a "tax."

And when it is refunded, it is a refund of a "tax."

Careful. The tax being refunded is the tax imposed by Section 1, not the tax imposed by Section 3402(a)(1). Section 31 converts that withheld Section 3402 tax into a credit against the section 1 tax. To the extent that credit, along with other payments and credits, exceeds the tax imposed by Section 1, it is an overpayment and can be refunded. Section 6401(c) clarifies that if the taxpayer had no tax liability, the excess credits still constitute an overpayment (of the tax imposed by Section 1).

The CTC contention that they had no wages, if true, would mean that they had no tax withheld under Section 3402 and therefore no credit under Section 31. But every CTC return which requests a refund asserts that taxes were withheld under Section 3402 and claims a Section 31 credit. CTC Forms 4852 expressly state that they had no wages, but had withholding tax withheld from the wages they didn't have.

[ASITStands]

Both 'LPC' and 'Quixote' are correct in saying [by statute], "It's a tax being withheld" and "Section 31 creates a credit against a liability" determined later by return or assessment.

From this idea of a later assessment, 'Submarine Vet' gets his idea, "There is no tax."

However, remember, proper 'Cracking the Code' theory does not include a consideration that what was paid 'CtC' proponents and recorded on Form W-2 is in fact "wages."

So, even though the statute at 3402(a)(1) says "a tax" is being withheld, it's being withheld from "wages," and that's something 'Cracking the Code' is not willing to admit.

They continue to labor under the presumption if they say, "It's not 'wages!'" it's not "wages!" However, they never consider whether the payer has any right to make a determination the payments are "wages," and therein lies the issue with "privilege."

'Cracking the Code' proponents believe the payments they receive are not "wages," as they have no nexus to any federal privilege or their limited meaning of "trade or business."

I just read 'Quixote's' second paragraph. Very good. A contradiction.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Wow..I haven't seen Quatloos this hoppin' since John J. Bullshite and SFBFKADVP.

Welcome, SubVet. Unfortunately for you nobody's going to start labelling anyone a troll and indiscriminately removing their posts.

Sure hope you got your asbestos drawers on today.

[agent86x]

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

"A pending suit" implies that they have already been filed but not yet reached a final disposition. So, in what courts and what case numbers do these pending suits have?

Or did you mean -"discussed", "drafted" or "imagined"?

Try looking for a Sean K. Freeman.

Listed in the Veterans for Ron Paul list as "Ballistic Missile Fire Control Technician".

Age and location from Zabasearch matches Submarine Veteran's advertised MySpace page information.

[Submarine Veteran]

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.

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.

This kind of sophomoric, chickens**t, word-weaseling is why the court entered a summary judgment against Hendrickson.

Money was taken from the payments to Hendrickson as a withholding of tax. The money was sent to the government as taxes withheld. The government received the money and credited it to Hendrickson as taxes withheld. Hendrickson applied for a refund of tax.

Trying to claim that what Hendrickson got was not a "tax refund" is just semantic tap-dancing without any substance.

Gee Danny Boy!

You are certainly not verbose in this reply however you are clearly not erudite!

You are a MORON and will soon be unemployed...l

[Submarine Veteran]

Wow..I haven't seen Quatloos this hoppin' since John J. Bullshite and SFBFKADVP.

Welcome, SubVet. Unfortunately for you nobody's going to start labelling anyone a troll and indiscriminately removing their posts.

Sure hope you got your asbestos drawers on today.

When you've spent as much time as I have around nuclear missiles, it'd take a hell of a lot more than the likes of any of you pencil-necked geeks to scare me. Asbestos is for PUSSIES like JJ McNab...