CaptainKickBack wrote:That's pretty much the heart of it. The rest is fluff and flummery.
That and the fact he/she repeats the same vomit over and over.
By the way, the meaning of "veracious" seems to have gone over his/her head too.
Merriam-Webster wrote:Main Entry:
ve·ra·cious Listen to the pronunciation of veracious
Pronunciation:
\və-ˈrā-shəs\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin verac-, verax — more at very
Date:
circa 1677
1 : truthful , honest 2 : marked by truth : accurate
I suspect he/she meant "voracious."
Merriam-Webster wrote:Main Entry:
vo·ra·cious Listen to the pronunciation of voracious
Pronunciation:
\vȯ-ˈrā-shəs, və-\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin vorac-, vorax, from vorare to devour; akin to Old English ācweorran to guzzle, Latin gurges whirlpool, Greek bibrōskein to devour
Date:
1635
1 : having a huge appetite : ravenous 2 : excessively eager : insatiable <a voracious reader>
Although some of can work on cars, many of us earn our livings dealing with the law or in allied areas. Others are certainly interested, well-read observers.
I have never represented the IRS; I frequently represent folks against the IRS and state and local taxing authorities. What does my ability or inability to keep a one-owner '66 Chevy pickup (short wheel base, fleetside, three on the tree) running have to do with my legal skills?
Would you judge a physician's competence by her ability to grow roses?
The comment reflects a strong bent towards anti-intellectualism. You seem to suggest that lack of certain "practical" skills shows that a person lacks common sense, etc. The comment also reflects an element of jealousy to those you perceive as better educated and more sophisticated.
Just an observation. As the Cpt says, "Your milage may vary."
NB: I actually parted with said '66 Chevy a year or so ago to one of our secretaries, who wanted it for her husband. He still drives it on weekends. And it was a one owner.
WWII ended and the Victory Tax provisions were repealed but it was not publicized. Most Americans assumed that paying the Victory Tax and Paying normal income taxes were the same thing and they were led to that belief by guess who, the veracious IRS and Treasury.
As with most tax denier fantasies, those two cannot withstand even the briefest research into actual documents.
The Victory Tax was not repealed. There was no need to repeal the tax because, by the express language of the Victory Tax Act, the tax applied only to income from 1943.
Any American who filed a Form 1040 for 1943 would have had to have been remarkably unobservant to not have noticed the two separate columns on Form 1040, one for the income tax, the other for the Victory Tax. Form 1040A had only one column, but on it the two taxes were computed separately on lines 6 and 7, respectively, then added together on line 8.
"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
ASITStands wrote:By the way, the meaning of "veracious" seems to have gone over his/her head too.
Same with the "cannon" jokes.
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.
If "from whatever source derived" is as clear as all of you claim it is, there wouldn't be a need to include federal or state employees. I can't count the number of times people like Dan try and claim people are stupid because they don't accept "from whatever source" to mean any source whatsoever no matter who you are. Clearly if it were that obvious and the 16th truly amendmended the constitution to allow for an all encompassing income tax and that was its purpose then clarifying it includes federal or state workers would be idiotic right? Are we to assume that it was unclear that "from whatever source" might not include the government's ability to tax itself? How many times have all of you claimed its common sense? Surely "any person" includes federal workers right? Why would they need to list federal workers if "any person" means any person whatsoever? You are on the one hand making fun of people for not reading the "any person" part but then right after that it lists specific people. Ummmm I thought any person means all people why list anything, its obvious right?
Alright, the return of my favorite maroon. Hey, stevesy, if the income tax didn't apply to people in general, why didn't the Supreme Court say THAT instead of saying that the federal government could not tax state government employees because that would be, in effect, a tax on the states? And where do you get this nonsense about federal employees? The act being discussed is one that dealt with STATE employees. But, then, your arguments are all based on ignoring words that ARE in the statutes and adding words that are not, so we shouldn't be surprised.
Paul wrote: And where do you get this nonsense about federal employees? The act being discussed is one that dealt with STATE employees. But, then, your arguments are all based on ignoring words that ARE in the statutes and adding words that are not, so we shouldn't be surprised.
It is in the definition of an employee in the IRC. So tell me Paul, why does the code list out federal employees if any person means every single person imaginable within the United States?
I'm not arguing one way or the other if the code only applies to federal employees or whatever. I'm just kind of tired of watching you guys bash people because they aren't accepting things like "from whatever source" to mean any source imaginable and not accepting the first part of Section 6331 "any person" to mean every single person imaginable.
Like I said you act like they're stupid...."well idiot it does say any person!" Ummm aren't the people listed below persons? If its so idiotic to assume "any person" may not mean every single person regardless then why would the writers of the code list out only certain people in the same section? Like I said, aren't they people? Maybe those listed aren't person's after all and they're really shape shifting lizards so they had to be specifically mentioned.
SteveSy wrote:
It is in the definition of an employee in the IRC. So tell me Paul, why does the code list out federal employees if any person means every single person imaginable within the United States?
I'm not arguing one way or the other if the code only applies to federal employees or whatever. I'm just kind of tired of watching you guys bash people because they aren't accepting things like "from whatever source" to mean any source imaginable and not accepting the first part of Section 6331 "any person" to mean every single person imaginable.
Like I said you act like they're stupid...."well idiot it does say any person!" Ummm aren't the people listed below persons? If its so idiotic to assume "any person" may not mean every single person regardless then why would the writers of the code list out only certain people in the same section? Like I said, aren't they people? Maybe those listed aren't person's after all and they're really shape shifting lizards so they had to be specifically mentioned.
First, the tax laws do reference "any person", however, while all employees are persons, not all persons are employees. Second, there may be some instances where the IRC consider a person's position to be an employee. Outside of the IRC, that position would not normally be considered an employee. By INCLUDING those positions in the definition of employee, it clarifies that those positions are subject to the withholding requirements. It is that simple.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
If its so idiotic to assume "any person" may not mean every single person regardless then why would the writers of the code list out only certain people in the same section?
Because the sentence in which the list appears deals with a related, but distinct matter, as has been explained to you on numerous occasions. The first sentence of IRC 6331 tells us whose property may be levied. The second sentence tells us how certain specific property may be levied. Reading is fundamental.
"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
If its so idiotic to assume "any person" may not mean every single person regardless then why would the writers of the code list out only certain people in the same section?
Because the sentence in which the list appears deals with a related, but distinct matter, as has been explained to you on numerous occasions. The first sentence of IRC 6331 tells us whose property may be levied. The second sentence tells us how certain specific property may be levied. Reading is fundamental.
(a) Authority of Secretary If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.
What you wrote makes no sense at all....
The first part says they can levy all property. The part concerning people employed by the United States says they can levy their salary. According to you they can levy everyone's salary.
Question, please explain what specifically separates federally employed workers from everyone else in the above paragraph.What powers do they do or do not have, identified above, that explains why they chose to specifically list federal workers seperate and apart from everyone else. If the powers to levy are the same then please tell me why federal employed personnel do not fall within the category of "any person".
SteveSy wrote:
What you wrote makes no sense at all....
The first part says they can levy all property. The part concerning people employed by the United States says they can levy their salary. According to you they can levy everyone's salary.
Question, please explain what specifically separates federally employed workers from everyone else in the above paragraph.What powers do they do or do not have, identified above, that explains why they chose to specifically list federal workers seperate and apart from everyone else. If the powers to levy are the same then please tell me why federal employed personnel do not fall within the category of "any person".
They can't levy everyone's salary, because everyone doesn't have a salary.
There's a difference between "any person" and "employee," because not just "any person" is an "employee," although all persons called "employee" are part of "any person."
The reason it specifically mentions what you call "federal employees" is to settle whether a State can levy "federal employees," or the United States levy "State employees."
It's all been laid out in the case law cited. Very clearly explains "why" they did it that way.
However, even if you can't see it yet, just remember, it's two separate sentences.
From the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in James v. United States:
Plaintiffs also assert that the levy was invalid under 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) because Mr. James was not an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States or the District of Columbia, or of any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs' argument is frivolous. Section 6331(a) empowers the IRS to levy the property of all taxpayers. See Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-13 (1959) (all taxpayers are subject to levy for deficiencies under §6331 ; §6331 specifically names government employees and agents in response to earlier Supreme Court case which held that "federal disbursing officer might not, in the absence of express congressional authorization, set off an indebtedness of a federal employee to the Government against the employee's salary"); see also Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasizing broad scope of §6331 ), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1957 (1992).
----James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 92-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,389, fn 9 (10th Cir. 1992) (bolding added).
And, from the decision in Craig v. Lowe:
Craig's claims are as follows: First, Craig contends that 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) authorizes the IRS to levy only on the salary or wages of federal employees, and the notices of intent to levy on his property were invalid because he is not a federal employee. Section 6331(a) provides, in part,
----------If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax ... by levy upon all property and rights to property ... belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer ... of such officer, employee, or elected official.
Craig argues that the meaning of this section lies in the second sentence, authorizing the Secretary to levy on the wages or salary of federal employees. This interpretation is wholly frivolous. It ignores the first sentence, which authorizes the Secretary to levy on the property of "any person liable to pay any tax [who] neglects or refuses to pay the same." Section 6331(a) , taken in its entirety, plainly authorizes the IRS to levy on the property of any delinquent taxpayer. By mentioning federal employees in this statute, Congress did not intend to exclude other taxpayers, but rather to make clear that federal salaries are not exempt from levies. See Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-13 (1959); see also Arford v. United States, 934 F.2d 229, 233-34 (9th Cir. 1991) (section 6331 applies to employees of private companies as to government employees).
--Craig v. Lowe, 96-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,416 (N.D. Calif. 1996).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
It is in the definition of an employee in the IRC. So tell me Paul, why does the code list out federal employees if any person means every single person imaginable within the United States?
Thanks, famspear. Beat me to it.
And, of course, even if stevesy were correct that only federal employees' salaries are subject to levy, what does that have to do with whose income is taxable?
Plaintiff [taxpayer Leonard Peth] apparently thinks that only federal officers and employees are subject to the levy and distraint provisions of §6331. He is wrong. See Sims v. United States, 359 U. S. 108, 112-113 (1959).
--from Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9321 (E.D. Wis. 1985).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Plaintiff also argues that because §6331 specifically states a notice of levy is sufficient to "make" a levy on the salary of a federal or District of Columbia employee, serving a notice of levy is not sufficient to "'make" a levy on the salary of a private sector employee. That same argument was clearly rejected in Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-13 (1959), which explains that federal and District of Columbia employees were specifically mentioned to overcome authority treating them differently and to make clear they were to be treated just like every other employee.
--from Pawlowske v. Chrysler Corp., 623 F. Supp. 569, 86-1 USTC ¶9392 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
The genesis of all this argument about the "federal worker" langugage in section 6331(a) is a case -- decided ninety years ago -- that had nothing to do with taxation.
Back in 1912, Congress enacted a law providing for a U.S. District Court in what was then the U.S. territory of the Canal Zone (the Panama Canal Zone). The law provided for a federal judge -- and a salary for that federal judge.
At some point, the judge was provided with living quarters owned by the U.S. government. An officer called the Auditor of the Canal Zone decided -- possibly on his own, as it turns out -- that he had the legal duty or right to withhold, from the judge’s pay checks, an amount to cover the rent for the government-owned living quarters provided to the judge.
The Auditor's action raised some eyebrows. In 1915, the Secretary of War (now, we would say the Secretary of Defense) asked for a legal opinion from the Attorney General as to whether the Auditor was legally entitled to do this.
The Attorney General rendered a legal opinion that the Auditor was not authorized to withhold from the judge’s pay unless a law allowed the withholding. Essentially, the Auditor was engaging in a “setoff” (or “offset”) – offsetting the amount the Auditor claimed was due by the judge to the U.S. government for rent against the salary due by the government to the judge. The Attorney General found no law allowing that offset.
The Auditor was not satisfied with the Attorney General’s opinion, and apparently continued to make the offsets for the rent.
The judge understandably filed a lawsuit to compel the Auditor to stop withholding the rent from the judge’s paychecks.
The Auditor lost the lawsuit -- both at the trial court, and on appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Finally, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In April 1918, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the judge and against the Auditor. In the absence of a law allowing the Auditor to make the offset, the Auditor would not be allowed to make the offset. The case is Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388 (1918).
According to the text of the United States Supreme Court decision in Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108 (1959), the language of what is now section 6331 regarding an officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, etc., etc., (I’ll abbreviate this to the “federal worker language”) was added to the tax statutes many years ago because of the decision in Smith v. Jackson. This is another example of emphatic redundancy (or intensive redundancy) on the part of Congress –- purposefully adding what might be considered redundant language to a statute in response to prior court decisions, in this case to make absolutely crystal clear that it is the intent of Congress that the law allow an administrative levy against federal workers, etc. Had the Auditor in the Canal Zone never withheld the pay of that judge, the case of Smith v. Jackson would have never been brought, and it is entirely possible that the “federal worker language” of section 6331 would not be there today.
Congress was simply concerned because the Supreme Court, back in 1918, had ruled [EDIT: See correction at end of this post] -- in a case where the word “tax” is not even mentioned -- that an administrative levy for a federal tax on the income of a federal worker might be deemed to be an invalid offset covered by the doctrine of Smith v. Jackson. Now, in the absence of the "federal worker" language in 6331, maybe some court or another might view a tax levy as being covered by Smith v. Jackson, or maybe that court might not view it that way. Either way, the Congress simply wanted to avoid the problem and to make clear that federal administrative tax levies are not impaired by the Smith v. Jackson doctrine. Hence, the arguably redundant (i.e., partially redundant) language of what is now section 6331(a).
The examples of the cases I cited earlier in this thread illustrate the tendency of many tax protesters to take unfamiliar language in a statute or other legal text and go wild with conjectures and phony, pseudo-legal theories, straining for an argument against the validity of the tax law, etc., etc., without actually sitting down and doing cold, unemotional formal legal research needed to determine why the language is there in the first place and how the language has been interpreted in actual court decisions.
Aside from suffering from the psychological handicap of always fighting The Authority Figure, always concluding that The Authority Figure is “wrong" or "bad" or "unfair" or "corrupt", and then looking for any language they can find anywhere that they feel seems to “fit” their pre-determined conclusion, most tax protesters suffer from the handicap of not knowing how to perform proper, formal legal research and the handicap of not having studied literally thousands of statutes and court decisions. Statutes like section 6331 are often viewed by protesters in isolation, without a meaningful attempt to put the language of the text in the context of the origin of that language. Instead, the protester simply interprets the language in a way that seems to support the protester’s desired conclusion about the “invalidity” of the law, or to support whatever the protester is otherwise straining to do.
EDIT: The applicable sentence noted above should read:
Congress was simply concerned because the Supreme Court, back in 1918, had ruled that an offset against a judge's pay was invalid -- in a case where the word “tax” is not even mentioned -- that an administrative levy for a federal tax on the income of a federal worker might be deemed to be an invalid offset covered by the doctrine of Smith v. Jackson.
Last edited by Famspear on Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
funwithsafety wrote:You guys can't do anything else for a living, can you? Do any of you know how to rebuild a car engine? Probably not.
I'm so embarrassed that I wasn't one of cool kids in high school that took auto mechanics while I was stuck studying calculus and American history and English.
Although, in retrospect, I would rather be one of the people designing a car engine, or providing legal or financial advice to the people designing and building a car engine, than one of the people rebuilding a car engine.
Fortunately, intelligence is transferable. I have done estate tax planning, estate administration, estate litigation, charitable administration, corporate planning, business management, cabinetry, carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, and car repair, so I know I can learn new skills. But stupidity is pretty much a one trick pony.
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.
Famspear wrote:The genesis of all this argument about the "federal worker" langugage in section 6331(a) is a case -- decided ninety years ago -- that had nothing to do with taxation.
The Tax Protester FAQ presently has the 6331 argument and the Sims case embedded in the section on the government employee/3401 argument, but I'm now thinking it deserves a separate entry .
Excuse me while I cut and paste.
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.
funwithsafety wrote:You guys can't do anything else for a living, can you? Do any of you know how to rebuild a car engine? Probably not.
Hey Funguy, wanna get your hands on an Allison V-12? Probably not. How about a Packard-built Merlin? What's the boost supposed to be during the run up cycle?
Ever tried to start one of those? No, probably not. Know what a Curtiss electric prop is? What are the takeoff settings for the R-4360?
Let's get down into something more simple for your apparent level of understanding. Know what a magneto is? Know what it does (without looking on the 'net?). Ever had to prime an Allison V-12? Or how many turns of the prop are needed on a radial engine? What are the flap settings for takeoff in a P-47 at maximum load?
See, there's a lot of esoteric knowledge out there on a lot of subjects that people like you are content to gloss over but when it comes to a life and death matter you'll run for the exits rather than risk your a** on a guess or what you find on a Google search. But when you really, really have to know you would eventually get someone who really really knows and have them really really drill it into your head because your life is at stake (as well as a very expensive machine).
Or you can pontificate on the 'net without any risk at all.
Am I being redundant with this: "Dogs chase cars; doesn't mean they know how to drive.'
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy. The Devil Makes Three
Famspear wrote:The genesis of all this argument about the "federal worker" langugage in section 6331(a) is a case -- decided ninety years ago -- that had nothing to do with taxation.
Great write up, 'Famspear!' No wonder Dan wants to cut and paste. Wouldn't it be great if some others used cut and paste to put some real information into their brains? Maybe?
Really appreciate how you characterized tax protester theories.
