Discussion with MN Stix

[Famspear]

Perhaps the confusion or misinterpretation is based on the fact that "excise tax" is used to refer to both a specific type of tax and to a class of taxes.
I do hope this helps.

Excellent point -- highlighting another legal point. The same word can be used in different ways in different places.

In one place in the U.S. Constitution, the word "law" itself is used more than once within the same sentence - with two related but nevertheless distinct technical meanings. But that's another discussion.

Back to the term "excise". In federal court cases involving the term "excise" as used in the U.S. Constitution, the term "excise" is general used as shorthand for "duties, imposts and excises," which are also collectively referred to as "indirect taxes." ("Direct taxes" in the Constitution are sometimes referred to as simply "taxes").

By contrast, the term is used in the Internal Revenue Code itself, generally, only to refer to a "miscellaneous excise tax" (in other words, the Subtitle D taxes). Those are the particular kinds of excises that actually do relate to the exercise of a privilege. This is where the confusion sets in for tax protesters who read cases that refer to the "privilege" and then incorrectly assume that the courts are ruling that income taxes (which are excises in the more general constitutional law sense, but not in the statutory, Internal Revenue Code, sense) must somehow involve a "privilege". The federal income tax is a Subtitle A tax. Likewise, gift taxes, which are also "excises" in the constitutional sense, are not Subtitle D excises. The gift taxes are imposed under Subtitle B, not Subtitle D. You don't generally see the Subtitle B gift tax being referred to as an "excise" in the Code itself (even though it's an excise in the constitutional sense).

Maybe this is not easy to understand if you don't live and breathe this stuff.

EDIT: I went back and looked, and the "statutory" excises would also include the Subtitle E taxes.

[jg]

Hendrickson, and others (since none of what he claims is his superior divination of the income tax law is actually original), insist that because an excise tax is based on a privilege that the income tax must also be based on some privilege.

It is just wrong to claim an income tax must be based on a privilege. The statutes do not say that it is and there is no support for that from the Supreme Court, or other courts, in regard to an income tax.

Quite the contrary was shown earlier:

An excise doesn't have to involve any "privilege." The Supreme Court explicitly held as follows in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=548:

I hope my comments help to reconcile what is often cited from Flint v. Stone Tracy with what the Dr. provided wherein the court very clearly said that rights can be, and are, taxed.

[Gregg]

just wanted to make a little illustration here....

First, a direct quote, correctly copied..

SCOTUS wrote:
It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek's understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.

and here, how the same quote might appear if Mssr. Hendrickson wantesd to use it

SCOTUS wrote:
.....wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.

Get it?

[Famspear]

just wanted to make a little illustration here....

First, a direct quote, correctly copied..

SCOTUS wrote:
It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek's understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.

and here, how the same quote might appear if Mssr. Hendrickson wantesd to use it

SCOTUS wrote:
.....wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.

Get it?

Awww, that would never happen! Oh, no, the PeterEricBlowhardMeister would never deliberately try to mislead anyone........

[Judge Roy Bean]

....

Awww, that would never happen! Oh, no, the PeterEricBlowhardMeister would never deliberately try to mislead anyone........

At the risk of being redundant: Dogs chase cars; doesn't mean they know how to drive.

In Hendrickson and other scam cases, they know they don't know how to drive but they have to chase the car to get the others up on their feet.

[Imalawman]

BTW - Stix, no one expects you to respond to each and every posts. No one here can keep up with Famspear. Frankly, there's a rumor going around that he's actually quit his job to post on here full-time.

[Famspear]

BTW - Stix, no one expects you to respond to each and every posts. No one here can keep up with Famspear. Frankly, there's a rumor going around that he's actually quit his job to post on here full-time.

If only I could.......

[ASITStands]

BTW - Stix, no one expects you to respond to each and every posts. No one here can keep up with Famspear. Frankly, there's a rumor going around that he's actually quit his job to post on here full-time.

I didn't think he had a job (otherwise known as doing something productive).

All he appears to do is read Lost Horizons and comment on their errors here. I thought he was retired or something. Tired, retired and retarded. Two out of three ain't bad.

I'm speaking of myself so don't get offended. I'll leave you to guess which two.

[Famspear]

BTW - Stix, no one expects you to respond to each and every posts. No one here can keep up with Famspear. Frankly, there's a rumor going around that he's actually quit his job to post on here full-time.

I didn't think he had a job (otherwise known as doing something productive).

All he appears to do is read Lost Horizons and comment on their errors here. I thought he was retired or something. Tired, retired and retarded. Two out of three ain't bad.

I'm speaking of myself so don't get offended. I'll leave you to guess which two.

And I'm in big trouble if Pete Hendrickson ever shuts down the losthorizons web site. I'll have almost nothing to do.....

[wserra]

My God, look at this thread. Don't you pathetic people have anything better to do on a Friday evening? [Conveniently forgetting all the times I have posted here on a Friday evening.]

Awright, Stix, I think enough of my colleagues have posted as to the law, at least pending your reply. There is one thing that no one so far has said, though, at least not explicitly.

There are indeed gray areas in the law - not as many, I think, as popularly believed, but they exist. This is not one of them. Famspear keeps asking you to cite a single case in which Hendrickson's nonsense has prevailed. You have not been, and will not be, able to do so, because none exist. On the other hand, there are many cases in which it has not only lost but been sanctioned, including Hendrickson's own. What makes you think it ever will win? What can you point to that indicates that any federal judge anywhere - and those are the folks with the final say, unless Congress amends the IRC - will rule in your favor? If you can't answer this, why is Hendrickson not just setting up lambs for the slaughter?

Even the usual "the courts are corrupt" or "judges are afraid of the IRS" - itself nonsense, because judges rule against the IRS all the time - can't help you if the reality is that, for whatever reason, you will simply never win. At this point, lots of people we converse with on points like this resort to "they laughed at Galileo". Carl Sagan famously responded, "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

[ASITStands]

Yeah. It is kind of 'fun' to sit back and read the stuff that comes out of there.

Behind the scenes I've even contacted a few posters there, and several have stopped posting. It's not that I convinced anyone particularly, but I was able to provide information that maybe stopped them from making bigger mistakes than they could afford.

I have an interest in some of them coming to grips with the truth.

I've been pleased with 'mutter's' attitude, and certainly, you've played a big part in exposing the errors he formerly believed. I wish him well, and I know there are people who can help him reduce his exposure while at the same time keep a worse fate from occurring.

Like many here, I've waited a long time to see Pete Hendrickson's scheme fail.

From the beginning, I saw that it was little more than a rehash of theories that had gone before. It's always difficult to convince others, but now we see some fruit for our efforts.

I think the forum will grow dark soon.

[MN Stix]

ASITStands, although I find your banter to be most humorous in nature, I believe it is off topic in this particular thread. I must admit, your assumptions draw a curious smile to my face...even a few chuckles from time to time. Although I do hold these things true, I respectfully request you start another thread in the comedy section of Quatloos. I think we can all agree your less intuitive, yet admittidly humorous and witty assumptions, would be better made use of in a new thread. If you would like to contribute your legal expertise in converting my "Loser Head" idiologies, feel free to post. It is simply easier to locate the legal considerations others have provided, without the need to sift through useless (admittedly humorous) postings.

Again, I do appreciate the comic relief, I simply cannot find use for it atm.

Thank for your cooperation

[Imalawman]

ASITStands, although I find your banter to be most humorous in nature, I believe it is off topic in this particular thread. I must admit, your assumptions draw a curious smile to my face...even a few chuckles from time to time. Although I do hold these things true, I respectfully request you start another thread in the comedy section of Quatloos. I think we can all agree your less intuitive, yet admittidly humorous and witty assumptions, would be better made use of in a new thread. If you would like to contribute your legal expertise in converting my "Loser Head" idiologies, feel free to post. It is simply easier to locate the legal considerations others have provided, without the need to sift through useless (admittedly humorous) postings.

Again, I do appreciate the comic relief, I simply cannot find use for it atm.

Thank for your cooperation

Anything else we can do for you?

[ASITStands]

Thanks for the chuckle, 'MN Stix' and 'Imalawman!'

[MN Stix]

Lawman, I do not recall asking you to do anything for me. Obviously, you intend to play the part of comic relief as well. So be it, if that is all you have to offer. I can only respectfully request the same courtesy from you. I never demanded, it was/is merely a request.

ASITStands, I have no control over what happens here. I simply requested a courtesy that you obviously do no intend to give. I will thank you for your consideration on the matter and look forward to you wasting my time. At least I will find some shit to laugh at while sifting through the information.

[Demosthenes]

Lighten up MN Stix.

Tax and legal professionals come to Quatloos for the amusement factor. No one here gets paid a penny to answer your questions.

[buck09]

Lighten up MN Stix.

Tax and legal professionals come to Quatloos for the amusement factor. No one here gets paid a penny to answer your questions.

Yeah, but I'm really getting tired of having to pay taxes on my labor put into reading posts on a federally-connected topic.

Actually, a tax on labor alone would be pretty cool - you could accrue taxable labor that is then given back to the government, say 5% of total hours worked doing work for the government in ways similar to your day job. Even TPs could spend time cleaning municipal pools, working trailer park security, etc.

[webhick]

ASITStands, although I find your banter to be most humorous in nature, I believe it is off topic in this particular thread. I must admit, your assumptions draw a curious smile to my face...even a few chuckles from time to time. Although I do hold these things true, I respectfully request you start another thread in the comedy section of Quatloos. I think we can all agree your less intuitive, yet admittidly humorous and witty assumptions, would be better made use of in a new thread. If you would like to contribute your legal expertise in converting my "Loser Head" idiologies, feel free to post. It is simply easier to locate the legal considerations others have provided, without the need to sift through useless (admittedly humorous) postings.

Again, I do appreciate the comic relief, I simply cannot find use for it atm.

Thank for your cooperation

Anything else we can do for you?

Point him to the ignore/foe feature so he doesn't "waste" his time lecturing us on how he wants us to behave in his presence.

[MN Stix]

Demosthenes, I understand exactly that. I know it is difficult to get a picture from text, Iam lightened up. I am not trying to stand in the way of anyone, just making a request so I can get through the good information that is being provided.

The point is not to take away your enjoyment, it is more to save this thread from the need of mulitples to continue the dialogue. I do not want to mess up your boards, nor do I wish to spend my time fumbling through multiple threads just to get at the good information that is being laid out for consideration.

I value my time the same way you value yours. No, you do not need to provide any legal information, you do not need to provide anything. I do thank you for the legal contributions though.

Do not hold me in the wrong light, I enjoy humor as much as anyone else. As a matter of fact, I enjoy humor more than most Actually, I have no problems being the butt of a joke either.

[grixit]

Lighten up MN Stix.

Tax and legal professionals come to Quatloos for the amusement factor. No one here gets paid a penny to answer your questions.

Yeah, but I'm really getting tired of having to pay taxes on my labor put into reading posts on a federally-connected topic.

Actually, a tax on labor alone would be pretty cool - you could accrue taxable labor that is then given back to the government, say 5% of total hours worked doing work for the government in ways similar to your day job. Even TPs could spend time cleaning municipal pools, working trailer park security, etc.

In the Dark Ages, serfs and peasants were required to labor a certain number of days for their lieges. In later centuries, this was gradually changed to cash payment, which was considered a step towards liberation.