My favorite LH post of the day

[Dezcad]

This contains too many misconceptions from what appears to be a new poster on the LH forums-

Wow! What a blustery morning! I just got off the phone with Rich
Organist from the city of Pittsburgh, PA audit department. He said
that he is denying my refund because I have a W-2 on file from the
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, INC. I told him he cannot do that lawfully
because I also have a Form 4852 on file declaring that the W-2 is
erroneous, and that the Form 4852 negates the W-2 and renders it
legally null and void.

He immediately became very angry, very loud, very annoyed, and
astonishingly rude. He said, "LOOK, if YOU want to keep playing these
little GAMES, you can do that, and we can take this down to the court
and show them the W-2 and you can drive all the way back to Pittsburgh
and defend it and we'll keep your money and hit you with fines etc.
etc." I kept saying 'Could you please not raise your voice with me
sir?'

I explained to him that I did not perform "services" for
University of Pittsburgh, Inc. and that therefore I did not have any
income from them. He demanded to know what I did for U of P, and at
first I wouldn't tell him and that got him hopping mad. I finally said
"Look, I worked in a laboratory for them, but I did not perform any
services."

"So they sent you a check for what...for doing nothing?" "No, they
sent me a check for working for them, but NOT for performing a service
as that term is statutorily defined."

I demanded to speak to his supervisor or higher officer, and he
at first LIED to me and said he WAS the highest officer. About 5
minutes later he recanted and said that Timothy O'Donnell was the
highest officer in the audit department. I suppose I could ding him
for that, but I don't want to muddy the waters because if I handle
these guys like a jerk, they'll respond by taking it to court and
making my life more difficult. I'm trying to be as polite as possible,
but wow was this guy full of hot air.

He said they already have a letter out to U of P asking them what
I did for them in 2007. He said that when it comes back saying I
performed "services" they will deny my refund. I asked him why they
would break the law by taking the legal testimony of the University
over the legal testimony of the accused party when the law clearly
states that by rebutting, the accused trumps any charges, at least
with respect to income taxes.

Any way, he gave me Timothy O'Donnell's number, and Tim is
supposed to be calling me back after his lunch break. I thanked the
fellow and he promptly slammed the phone down on me. Wow. How can you
be that much of a jerk? Seriously. I didn't tell him he was fat or
call his mother ugly, I just said he was mistaken and he got mega mad.
You'd think I was a criminal from the way he treated me.

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1593

[LPC]

And the day is not yet over, so there's the possibility of more to come.

[Quixote]

"No, they
sent me a check for working for them, but NOT for performing a service
as that term is statutorily defined."

WTF? So now "services" doesn't mean services?

[The Observer]

"No, they
sent me a check for working for them, but NOT for performing a service
as that term is statutorily defined."

WTF? So now "services" doesn't mean services?

Please don't tell me you couldn't see that one coming.

[Duke2Earl]

"You'd think I was a criminal from the way he treated me."

Well, Duh! I wonder why that happened...not!

[LPC]

I know I've mentioned this before, but Pennsylvania's income tax system is totally independent of the federal income tax, and defines "income" very differently from the federal system.

So the claim that "services" doesn't mean "services" is not just wrong as a matter of federal law, but also irrelevant to the application of Pennsylvania law.

But you know tax deniers: One delusion fits all.

[ASITStands]

I know I've mentioned this before, but Pennsylvania's income tax system is totally independent of the federal income tax, and defines "income" very differently from the federal system.

So the claim that "services" doesn't mean "services" is not just wrong as a matter of federal law, but also irrelevant to the application of Pennsylvania law.

But you know tax deniers: One delusion fits all.

Or, because the poster thinks since he submitted IRS Form 4852 to rebut his "income" in one jurisdiction (i.e., IRS) would somehow transfer to Pennsylvania. He has a rude awakening once the PA Department of Revenue receives information from his "employer" or payer.

Most tax deniers don't understand the difference between the Internal Revenue Code and the Pennsylvania Tax Code. Pennsylvania is the only jurisdiction with a separate tax code.

Minnesota comes close but still depends on definitions from the Internal Revenue Code.

It's symptomatic of their not doing a very thorough study into the subject.

As you say, "One delusion fits all!" It's where you start with the answer (i.e., "I am not subject to the income tax!") and proceed to the question (i.e., "Where does law support?")

[Weston White]

Now that is curious about Pennsylvania, Richard recently posted this on LH:

SESSION OF 1943.

Section 2. This act shall become effective immediately upon its final enactment.

APPROVED--The 31st day of March, A.D. 1943.

EDWARD MARTIN

NO. 16

AN ACT

Authorizing and directing the various officers and agencies of the Commonwealth. and any municipality or political subdivision thereof, including counties, cities, towns, townships, boroughs and school districts, to cooperate with the United States Government in making deductions of the Victory Tax from the salaries and compensation of the State employees thereof, and directing the holding of such moneys and the transmittal thereof to the United States.

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows:

WHEREAS, It is not within the power of the Congress of the United States to direct that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its officers, agents and political subdivisions, withhold and deduct the Victory Tax from the salaries of its and their employees and transmit the same to the proper United States agency--

Section 1. Every officer and agency of the Commonwealth or any municipality or political subdivision thereof, including counties, cities, towns, townships, boroughs and school districts, is hereby authorized and directed to cooperate with the United States Government and the various agencies thereof, in the administration of the Federal law providing for the deduction of a "Victory Tax" from salaries and compensation of employees thereof, in so far as such law relates to the deduction of such tax from the salaries and compensation of such employees. Each such officer and agency from whom any action or duty is or may be hereafter required by the said Federal law, or the rules and regulations issued in connection therewith, either by the United States Treasury or by the proper agency of the Commonwealth or any municipality or any political subdivision thereof, including counties, cities, towns, townships, boroughs, and school districts, in order to insure and facilitate the making of the said Victory Tax deduction from such employees by the holding of the moneys derived from such deductions and the transmittal thereof to the proper United States agency, is hereby authorized and directed to take such action and perform such duty as so required or directed.

Section 2. The provisions of this act shall become effective immediately upon final enactment. APPROVED--The 31st day of March, A.D. 1943.

EDWARD MARTIN



Pretty much sums it up. The state of Pennsylvania knew the score in 1943. Wink

[Famspear]

Regarding this:

WHEREAS, It is not within the power of the Congress of the United States to direct that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its officers, agents and political subdivisions, withhold and deduct the Victory Tax from the salaries of its and their employees and transmit the same to the proper United States agency--

That sounds like whistling past the graveyard, even for a document purportedly from the 1940s era.

[jg]

Does not seem curious to me at all that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would pass a law to agree to cooperate in the collection of the Victory Tax in 1943.
That decision to cooperate and assist has no bearing on there being any connection between the federal and state income taxes, of course.
What do you find curious about it?

[Weston White]

Well if that document is actual, it is an admission to state sovereignty. Stating that the federal government does not have absolute powers over the state, that the state must be in agreement. This of course keeping Amendments IX and X in perspective, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

[jg]

Unfortunately, saying it does not make it so.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

[Weston White]

Well you have to look to the fundamental law, in order to determine that you have to review the Declaration of Independence. Which served the purpose of establishing the constitution of our Nation [the laws of], the purpose, the reason for even having our own nation. This is reflected within the Preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

..."a more perfect union", this is in reference to the perpetual union that was created originally within the Preamble of the Articles of Confederation.

You quoted Article IV, and thus noted: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ...", that prescribes that all laws must be in compliance with the U.S. Constitution for which the government ordains the authority to make laws in the first place. Ergo, all laws or acts which are not in pursuant of the U.S. Constitution are thereby deemed to "unconstitutional". Amendments IX and X are representative of this.

The Bill of Rights as a whole is designed to protect the whereas addressed within the Declaration of Independence.

[Nikki]

The Declaration, despite all its worth as a historical, ground-breaking document, is not law.

As of the date of the adoption of the Constitution, this nation established a new framework of governance and law -- effectively casting aside anything which existed before.

When various courts attempt to construe the deep meaning of the Constitution, they do, sometimes, refer back to writings contemporary with its adoption and even back to English common law.

Howwever, those references are merely taken and cited to support their opinions. Nothing which predates the Constitution (except as specifically adopted therein) has the force of law.

[LPC]

Well if that document [Act of March 31, 1943] is actual, it is an admission to state sovereignty.

Sorry, but Pennsylvania cannot enact an "admission" of its own sovereignty.

Stating that the federal government does not have absolute powers over the state, that the state must be in agreement.

You're missing a subject and verb from that "sentence."

The agreement of Pennsylvania to a federal law does not establish that its consent is necessary to the enforcement of that federal law. Or, putting it differently, the fact that Pennsylvania declared that its consent was necessary does not mean that its consent was in fact necessary. The only way to establish that consent is necessary is to withhold consent.

As jg has already pointed out, declaring that something is true does not make it so. The Declaration of Independence did not make the United States independent. It was the surrender of General Cornwallis at Yorktown that made the United States an independent and sovereign nation, and not a press release by the Continental Congress.

[The Observer]

As jg has already pointed out, declaring that something is true does not make it so. The Declaration of Independence did not make the United States independent. It was the surrender of General Cornwallis at Yorktown that made the United States an independent and sovereign nation, and not a press release by the Continental Congress.

The surrender of Cornwallis did no such thing, since Great Britain still had over 30,000 soldiers in the American colonies after the surrender. The surrender only led to the fall of the North government and the installation of a peace party.

It was the Treaty of Paris, 1783 that brought the war to a close and granted American independence and recognition by Great Britain as an independent nation.

[Weston White]

Well if that document [Act of March 31, 1943] is actual, it is an admission to state sovereignty.

Sorry, but Pennsylvania cannot enact an "admission" of its own sovereignty.

Stating that the federal government does not have absolute powers over the state, that the state must be in agreement.

You're missing a subject and verb from that "sentence."

The agreement of Pennsylvania to a federal law does not establish that its consent is necessary to the enforcement of that federal law. Or, putting it differently, the fact that Pennsylvania declared that its consent was necessary does not mean that its consent was in fact necessary. The only way to establish that consent is necessary is to withhold consent.

As jg has already pointed out, declaring that something is true does not make it so. The Declaration of Independence did not make the United States independent. It was the surrender of General Cornwallis at Yorktown that made the United States an independent and sovereign nation, and not a press release by the Continental Congress.

Dear confused soul ( )... You do realize that of course that we are no longer living under British America right? You do realize that since 1781 we have been living under the United States of America, right? And that it was the Declaration of Independence that permitted everything thereafter to occur, otherwise we would still be British America... or hell who knows perhaps by now we would be under the control of Germany or Russia or China or some other communist county.

Also, the Declaration of Independence is a legally relevant document it has not been canceled out or anything else of that kind, it serves as our Nation's fundamental law. Repealing the Articles of Confederation only repealed the Articles of Confederation and nothing else. The foundation of the U.S. Constitution derives from the Declaration of Independence... sort of how the 16th Amendment works.

[wserra]

Also, the Declaration of Independence is a legally relevant document it has not been canceled out or anything else of that kind

"Cancelled out"? No, I suppose the US has never told Britain "Never mind". But the Declaration is much more a statement of guiding principles than a statement of law. Even Lincoln, who cited the Declaration extensively in the debates with Stephen Douglas, did not believe it to be law, but rather a moral guide. For anyone here interested in the Civil War who has not read it, Garry Wills' Lincoln at Gettysburg is an unparalleled 150 or so pages.

Here's how the Supreme Court has put it:

The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901).

[Weston White]

Thank you, it was nice of you to post that.

[notorial dissent]

Weston, does the concept/term, political rhetoric/manifesto mean anything to you? If not, please look up same.

Despite, or in spite of the Declaration of Independence’s historical value, legally, it had exactly nada for authority. It was issued as a political statement, a political manifesto of why the colonists were taking the actions they were, as opposed to just rising in open revolt, which in effect they were. It had exactly no legal standing whatsoever except as an open and signed declaration of treason by the signatories, issued on behalf of a government that had no recognition and no real standing.

Legally it has and had no legal standing then or now. Why is this a difficult concept? The Declaration of Independence is and was a statement of principals and nothing more or less. It is important for what it is, but do not try and make something out of it that it isn’t.

The foundation of the American government was the Constitution and the government it created in 1789.