Section 93

[Famspear]

Perhaps you should apply your reading skills a tad more than your pontificating skills. That is exactly what 6201(a)(1) does state. BTW, it is “specifically”. (selfEmpowermentTrip++);

“(1) Taxes shown on return
The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.”

No, my skills are fine. Your problems continue, however, unabated. There's nothing in those two lines that restricts the ability of the Secretary to determine a deficiency, or to assess a deficiency once the deficiency procedures protecting the taxpayer have been followed. Read the f******g sentence, Weston. When the taxpayer files a return and shows the tax as, say, $10,000, the taxpayer has determined that amount to be the tax, and the Secretary ASSESSES that amount of tax. What part of that do you not understand?

We're not talking about the authority of the Secretary to assess the tax shown on the return. We're talking about the authority of the Secretary to DETERMINE a deficiency, and we're talking about the authority of the Secretary to ASSESS the deficiency. Can you read, Weston?

* BTW, where is the return for the 1040 made at within this title? No finde dat' statute anywherez, oh k'pasa?

What? "Where is the return for the 1040 made at within this title?" Where did you learn English anyway? Are you trying to ask where the requirement for filing a tax return is imposed? See IRC sections 6011 and 6012. Are you asking where the actual Form 1040 is prescribed? Look at the applicable regulations.

Yes there would because the self-assessment process is to be honesty by the “taxpayer”. Therefore, such a procedure would still have application. As in such a case during the self-assessment the “taxpayer” fines that not enough tax was withheld or in such cases that no tax was withheld at all.

Gleeb snork google bloogle doogle, Weston. The "self-assessment process is to be honesty by the taxpayer"? Or "as in such a case during the self-assessment the taxpayer fines that enough......" What are you smokin', Weston? Speak English.

The fact is that most likely the tax has yet to have been paid, this would be especially true in cases where withholding does not take place, and even when withholding does take place those withheld monies are in escrow pending the filing of a valid tax return listing the official amounts to be processed.

Zoomm..... goes Weston, off to Weston World!

I don't know folks. Your guess is as good as mine.

Yea, sort of like you attempting to push the illogical notation that by POLLOCK contemplating the exact meaning of the ‘direct tax’ has some sort of relevance in consideration of the ‘capitation tax’. Your claim is frivolous and absurd.

Earth calling Weston..... Earth calling Weston..... Come in, Weston. The Court in Pollock rejected Adam Smith...... Earth calling Weston.....

What you appear to being doing is lumping everything into one single ‘direct tax’ class, however, only with respect to ‘direct taxes’ as a distinct category, how convenient. That would be like me saying that there is no difference between an import and an excise, they are the same thing, just because they are both within the category of indirect taxation… clearly they are not, (even though they do exist within the same category of indirect taxes). Ergo, there is a very specific distinction between a ‘direct tax’ and ‘direct taxation’.

Earth calling Weston.... Earth calling Weston.....

If you read through the case you will note that ‘direct taxes’ was basically a nice way of saying a tax upon slaves, realty, personal stock of many kinds, and that for the consideration slaves were taxed as if they were themselves realty; also to note the theory of taxing slaves as a class of persons would follow in accordance with what a poll-tax is. So that leaves the remaining question of what are ‘capitations taxes’, they are that which has been thoroughly discussed by Dr. Adam Smith, taxes inconsideration of ones labor; for there is nothing else remaining that such taxes could be.

Gosh, I think it's time for me to do my nails again.....

It was also stated in quotations included within POLLOCK that to identify the distinctions between the two categories of taxes, ‘direct taxation’ would be those taxes levied directly upon the person or object itself, while ‘indirect taxation’ would be those taxes levied upon and reimbursed during the sale, transfer, or exchange of merchandise, produce, commerce, property, etc..

“Mr. Dexter observed that his colleague .....

Mr. Dexter..... Mr. Dexter.... Please call Mr. Weston......

Weston, you are a mess.

[Famspear]

Even if the Civil War revenue acts had not been long repealed by the late 1930s, they may well have been repealed here:

Well at least you are now recognizing the possibility of concurrency. This is step in the right direction. Heck, you all deserve to pop a bottle of champaign!

What? Concurrency? I am recognizing the possibility of WHAT?

The Civil War revenue acts do not apply to federal income tax returns for years covered by the Internal Revenue Code. What part of that do you not understand?

And the word is "champagne," not "champaign."

[Famspear]

By the way, the actual Treasury regulation that prescribes the use of the Form 1040 series is found at 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.6012-1(a)(6).

Note: Most federal tax forms are not expressly prescribed by "form number" by a specific Treasury regulation. And a separate Treasury regulation provides that the "Internal Revenue Service may prescribe[,] in forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance[,] the information or documentation required to be included with any return or any statement required to be made or other document required to be furnished under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations." 26 C.F.R. sec. 301.6011-1(b) (bolding added).

[Weston White]

No, my skills are fine. Your problems continue, however, unabated. There's nothing in those two lines that restricts the ability of the Secretary to determine a deficiency, or to assess a deficiency once the deficiency procedures protecting the taxpayer have been followed. Read the f******g sentence, Weston. When the taxpayer files a return and shows the tax as, say, $10,000, the taxpayer has determined that amount to be the tax, and the Secretary ASSESSES that amount of tax. What part of that do you not understand?

We're not talking about the authority of the Secretary to assess the tax shown on the return. We're talking about the authority of the Secretary to DETERMINE a deficiency, and we're talking about the authority of the Secretary to ASSESS the deficiency. Can you read, Weston?

Exactly! The Secretary performs the assessment according to the data provided by the “taxpayer”, what you have described the Secretary only gets to do when the “taxpayer” fails to submit their own assessment or the taxpayer instructs the IRS to do it for them under 26 USC 6020 And do not forget about this enabling portion of the sentence within 6201(a): “… which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law.”, it then goes on to “extend” the authority of this section to other areas in separate clauses.

The Secretary can only DETERMINE and ASSESS in accordance with the data provided by the “taxpayer”, e.g. check for math errors and note the official tax due or refund due, presuming the “taxpayer” has acted accordingly within the law.

Furthermore this is supported within 26 CFR:

Code: Select all

Part 5. Collecting Process
Chapter 1. General Collecting Procedures
Section 11. Delinquent Return Accounts (Cont. 1)
5.1.11.6.8  (03-01-2007)
IRC 6020(b) Authority 
1.	The following returns may be prepared, signed and executed by revenue officers under the authority of IRC 6020(b): 
A.	Form 940, Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return;
B.	Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return;
C.	Form 943, Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees; 
D.	Form 944, Employer's Annual Federal Tax Return;
E.	Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return;
F.	Form 2290, Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Return;
G.	Form CT–1, Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return; 
H.	Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income.
2.	Pursuant to IRM 1.2.44.5, Delegations of Authority, Order Number 182 (rev. 7), dated 5/5/1997, revenue officers GS-09 and above, and Collection Support Function managers GS-09 and above, have the authority to prepare and execute returns under IRC 6020(b). 

What? "Where is the return for the 1040 made at within this title?" Where did you learn English anyway? Are you trying to ask where the requirement for filing a tax return is imposed? See IRC sections 6011 and 6012. Are you asking where the actual Form 1040 is prescribed? Look at the applicable regulations.

We already addressed those 6011 and 6012 in another thread. 6011 applies to Subtitle C not A and 6012 is full of holes, e.g. compare the sections that establish and identify the W-2 and W-4 as compared to 6012 for the 1040, such a form is never established.
http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.p ... 040#p61852

Gleeb snork google bloogle doogle, Weston. The "self-assessment process is to be honesty by the taxpayer"? Or "as in such a case during the self-assessment the taxpayer fines that enough......" What are you smokin', Weston? Speak English.

Good God, get a hold of yourself, why you appear to have lost all sense of composure!

They are called typos, they happen, get over it... Though this does serve to make a fine point, for you seriously can’t figure those two short and simple sentences out at all and you want me to believe that you are able to comprehend statutes and the law? GTFO!

Here is the wicked breakdown for Mr. Chumpy:

honesty by = performed honesty by
fine = find

Zoomm..... goes Weston, off to Weston World!

I don't know folks. Your guess is as good as mine.

In other words, I have absolutely no response to that.

Earth calling Weston..... Earth calling Weston..... Come in, Weston. The Court in Pollock rejected Adam Smith...... Earth calling Weston.....

No, they said that Dr. Adam Smith did not discuss the meaning of what a ‘direct tax’ was to mean, they did not “reject Adam Smith” nor any similar such notion. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the meaning of the “capitation tax”, a separate class of tax than a ‘direct tax’ and which still hold the same meaning as it did since the 1700’s, when it was instituted in France.

Earth calling Weston.... Earth calling Weston.....

In other words, I got nothing.

Gosh, I think it's time for me to do my nails again.....

In other others I still got nothing.

...Anybody else starting to notice a pattern forming, here? I don't know perhaps it is just me.

Mr. Dexter..... Mr. Dexter.... Please call Mr. Weston......

Weston, you are a mess.

In other words, I know got nothing and I know that all of you reading this know that I got nothing, so I will just go about acting as a fool, kicking myself for even trying.

[Weston White]

By the way, the actual Treasury regulation that prescribes the use of the Form 1040 series is found at 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.6012-1(a)(6).

Note: Most federal tax forms are not expressly prescribed by "form number" by a specific Treasury regulation. And a separate Treasury regulation provides that the "Internal Revenue Service may prescribe[,] in forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance[,] the information or documentation required to be included with any return or any statement required to be made or other document required to be furnished under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations." 26 C.F.R. sec. 301.6011-1(b) (bolding added).

There is no supporting statute though, nothing in 6012 is mentionded about forms incosideration of Subtitle A, such as there is for example in 3402 for the W-4:

"...
(5) Form and contents of certificate
Withholding exemption certificates shall be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. "

[Famspear]

Exactly! The Secretary performs the assessment according to the data provided by the “taxpayer”, what you have described the Secretary only gets to do when the “taxpayer” fails to submit their own assessment or the taxpayer instructs the IRS to do it for them under 26 USC 6020

No, that is incorrect. There is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE SECRETARY DO A SECTION 6020 RETURN in order to determine an income tax deficiency. (People have tried to argue that point in court, and the courts have ruled, every single time, that the IRS is not required to do a section 6020 return.)

And do not forget about this enabling portion of the sentence within 6201(a): “… which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law.”, it then goes on to “extend” the authority of this section to other areas in separate clauses.

Yes, forget about that, Weston. That's not germane to the points we're discussing.

The Secretary can only DETERMINE and ASSESS in accordance with the data provided by the “taxpayer”, e.g. check for math errors and note the official tax due or refund due, presuming the “taxpayer” has acted accordingly within the law.

No. That is a legally frivolous argument.

Furthermore this is supported within 26 CFR:

Part 5. Collecting Process
Chapter 1. General Collecting Procedures
Section 11. Delinquent Return Accounts (Cont. 1)
5.1.11.6.8 (03-01-2007) [ . . . .]

That is not from the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). That is from the Internal Revenue Manual. And nothing in the material you quoted changes anything I have written.

We already addressed those 6011 and 6012 in another thread. 6011 applies to Subtitle C not A

Wrong. Section 6011 applies to the entire Internal Revenue Code.

and 6012 is full of holes, e.g. compare the sections that establish and identify the W-2 and W-4 as compared to 6012 for the 1040, such a form is never established.

Gibberish, Weston. I have already cited the Treasury reg that prescribes Form 1040. And I have already pointed out that most forms are not specified in the regs anyway.

In other words, I know got nothing and I know that all of you reading this know that I got nothing, so I will just go about acting as a fool, kicking myself for even trying.

You, see, Weston, this is why you are subject to the abuse you receive. You are not showing a good faith effort to discuss these matters. You simply ignore what others have written, and you go on your merry way, pretending that no one notices.

I am "Mr. Grumpy" tonight, not Mr. Chumpy. I am the one who invited you back here to Quatloos after Hendrickson unceremoniously kicked your a** out of the corn flakes bowl, the moral cesspool of losthorizons. I had hopes (maybe not high hopes, but hopes) that you would come over here, and settle down, and engage quatloos regulars in a meaningful way. Now, you are making me look bad.

When someone contradicts you, Weston, with a statute or regulation or court decision that obviously blows you out of the water (which happens every time), it does you no good to simply ignore that contradiction or to "contradict it right back."

I do not expect you to be a legal expert. I do expect you to READ WHAT IS PUT BEFORE YOU and think about it. Stop fighting us and start learning. I know that you obviously are smart enough to get this. Instead, you are deliberately fighting us. You are in "rebellion" mode, and you should be in "learning" mode.

You cannot "win" an argument here, Weston. We know what we are talking about. You do not. That does not mean that you are stupid, and that does not mean that you are a bad person. You are simply doing yourself a great disservice (if you actually use the ideas you espouse in filing your federal income tax returns).

I would not go to a web site run by physicists and start trying to contradict them about the intricacies of elementary particle physics. I have no training in advanced physics. You should recognize that you need to change your approach here at quatloos.

I and other quatloos regulars are not here to argue with you. We are here to lay down the law. Literally. This is a web site that exposes scams, including tax scams. Virtually every position you have taken in these pages over the past few days is, in some place or another, part of an illegal scam -- a criminal activity. The law is not what you say it is, Weston. Until and unless you recognize and accept the fact that you are not only out of your depth, but that you are wrong, you are never going to obtain any benefit from this interchange.

EDIT: To correct the position of quotation marks.

[Doktor Avalanche]

All of his arguments and word-dancing have ALL been declared moot, wrong and in some cases, frivolous by the courts. It is not original, it will not save him and it will drag he and his family right down into the mud. So, I hope he enjoys his job (a union one at that I think I read), because in 5 years (10 years max), it will all be a distant memory.

He should be so lucky.

[The Operative]

Weston,

The only thing you have done in this thread is to yet again display your inability to read. I suggest you forgo studying any statutes for the time being and spend the next month or two learning what the word, "or" means and how it is used in a sentence.

Also, you still have not answered my questions...

Weston, I am going to keep this utterly simple.

Do you believe that a tax on wages, salary, compensation or whatever word you wish to choose, for labor is a capitation?

Do you believe that compensation for labor, paid in the form of wages or salary, are not subject to the income tax laws?

Note: This time, I am asking for what you believe. I am not asking for an explanation. A simple yes or no answer will suffice or if you cannot answer with a yes or no, the simplest answer possible. Earlier, and in another thread, I asked if you thought the courts would agree with a similar statement. You have not answered that question yet either.

[.]

A simple yes or no answer will suffice

This board doesn't support diagonal writing of gibberish in red crayon, so don't hold your breath.

[ASITStands]

A simple yes or no answer will suffice ...

We should be so lucky!

[ASITStands]

The Act of 1862 imposed taxes on incomes until June 30, 1866 (Sec. 92).

The Act of 1864 imposed similar taxes until June 30, 1870 (Sec. 119). Both Acts expired!

A tax on incomes was imposed by the Act of 1870 to run two years, but a tax on incomes was not renewed in the Act of 1872, and no tax on incomes was enacted until the Act of 1894.

All those tax acts expired. Various sections were incorporated into later tax acts.

Sec. 93 of the Act of 1862 became Sec. 118 of the Act of 1864, and it allowed the assistant assessor an opportunity to approve or disapprove the deductions claimed by the taxpayer.

Congress was beginning to enact statutes that allowed the examination of returns.

Sec. 118 was further amended by the Act of 1865 to allow the assessor an opportunity to challenge a return. We'd call the results "examination" or "deficiency procedures" today.

When challenged, the taxpayer was allowed to "exhibit books and accounts" and "prove and declare, under oath or affirmation, the amount of annual income liable to be assessed."

However, "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 ..."

The assistant assessor was allowed an opportunity to exam the return for a deficiency.

The principles first laid down in Sec. 93 of the Act of 1862, as amended in Sec. 118 of the Acts of 1864 and 1865, became today's "deficiency procedures" in Subchapter B, Chapter 63.

Obviously, there would be no need for the Subchapter B deficiency procedures (relating to the excess of the correct tax -- the tax imposed by Subtitle A -- over the amount shown by the taxpayer on his return) if the IRS were bound by the taxpayer's "testimony" on the return and could not, at some point, assess the deficiency. And other sections of the Code provide the procedures whereby the IRS can indeed "assess" the deficiency.

The point of all this is that the Code includes a whole set of statutes that envision that the IRS will examine federal income tax returns, determine deficiencies, and ultimately assess and collect additional taxes.

One of the things that had been on my "to do" list was to point out that, even if section 93 had somehow survived 100+ years of changing tax laws without been expressly repealed, it was repealed by necessary implication by the 1954 Code because it was completely inconsistent with the deficiency procedures in the 1954 Code (and current law), which you have so ably demonstrated.

'Famspear' and 'LPC' are right! Whatever Sec. 93 represented in the previous tax acts does not supersede the deficiency procedures laid out in the current Internal Revenue Code.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 repealed all prior tax acts, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 reenacted, and renumbered, those same statutes. The principles of Sec. 93 were amended by Sec. 118 and incorporated into later tax acts as deficiency procedures.

[ASITStands]

26 U.S.C. § 6201(a)(1):

The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

Emphasis added. There's that little word, "or," again. Reading comprehension.

The problem with 'Cracking the Code' returns is that they've been determined to not be a return, by not satisfying the Beard test, and essentially, resembling "zero" returns.

Until or unless someone prevails on a 'Cracking the Code' return in court, that will continue.

And, on that basis, the IRS will continue to conduct deficiency procedures on any such returns, and in most cases, perfect a substitute for return. 'CtC' proponents will continue to default on notices of deficiency, and frivolous penalties will continue to be imposed.

Tax assessments will continue to be made, and 'CtC' proponents will continue to lose.

[Weston White]

26 U.S.C. § 6201(a)(1):

The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

Emphasis added. There's that little word, "or," again. Reading comprehension.

The problem with 'Cracking the Code' returns is that they've been determined to not be a return, by not satisfying the Beard test, and essentially, resembling "zero" returns.

Until or unless someone prevails on a 'Cracking the Code' return in court, that will continue.

And, on that basis, the IRS will continue to conduct deficiency procedures on any such returns, and in most cases, perfect a substitute for return. 'CtC' proponents will continue to default on notices of deficiency, and frivolous penalties will continue to be imposed.

Tax assessments will continue to be made, and 'CtC' proponents will continue to lose.

You are ignorning the consideration of 26 USC 6020, otherwise 6201 would simply just say the following, presuming what you claim were true:

(1) Taxes shown on return
The Secretary shall assess all taxes as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

vs. [what is does actually state, as originally stated within RA1862 Section 93 and now in accord with 26 USC 6020.]

(1) Taxes shown on return
The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

[Demosthenes]

Let's revisit this in 5 years time. At that point WW can provide definitive proof as to whether or not his beliefs actually held up in the real world of the IRS and possibly the courts too.

Poor Weston will be two or three more gurus down the road by then. He'll be facing financial ruin, no one will hire him, his family will have given up on him, and every time the phone rings or someone knocks on the door, he'll be stressing out that it's an IRS CI Special Agent. And poor Weston will continue to believe that he's experiencing freedom...

[Famspear]

Tax protesters/tax deniers like Weston White do exhibit chronic reading comprehension problems. Weston takes a sentence like this, from section 6201(a)(1):

The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

And modifies the text in his mind to read something like this:

The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer on the taxpayer’s return and, because the Secretary is bound by the taxpayer’s determination based on the taxpayer’s tax return testimony (even though there is no statute that says that), the Secretary cannot determine or assess any deficiency, even if the taxpayer fails to file a petition in Tax Court within 90 days of the issuance of a notice of deficiency, or even if the taxpayer files a petition with the Tax Court and the amount of a deficiency is redetermined by the decision of the Tax Court, and oh by the way sections 6213 and 6215 do not exist and please don't make me read them.

It all makes perfect sense in Weston World!

[Weston White]

All of his arguments and word-dancing have ALL been declared moot, wrong and in some cases, frivolous by the courts. It is not original, it will not save him and it will drag he and his family right down into the mud. So, I hope he enjoys his job (a union one at that I think I read), because in 5 years (10 years max), it will all be a distant memory.

What by repeatedly stating over and over that POLLOCK dismissed Dr. Adam Smith? Oh please!

Saying something repeatedly does not make it true. I already proved that silly argument has no foundation, I proved that all they were stating is that he does not mention 'direct taxes' within Wealth of Nations, that is because that is a vehicle the Forefathers created in consideration as to the categories of taxation they established, meaning 'direct taxation' and 'indirect taxation'.

The legal definition of ‘direct taxes’ is:

“A direct tax is one which is demanded from the very person who, it is intended or desired, should pay it.”

* Taxing ones labor or the remuneration resulting therefrom, would fit within this established definition, therefore, a tax levied in consideration of ones labor, would fit within the established category of taxation.

The legal definition of ‘indirect taxes’ is:

“Indirect taxes are those which are demanded from one person, in the expectation and intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of another.

"Indirect taxes are those demanded in the first instance from one person in the expectation and intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of another. “Ordinarily all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes.” – Pollock v. Farmer’s L. & T. Co..”"

* Taxing ones remuration does not permit the worker to accomplish the above, therefore, a tax upon laboring is not the correct tax to levy for such activities.

The legal definition of “excise” is:

“The words “tax” and “excise,” although often used as synonymous, are to be considered as having entirely distinct and separate significations. The former is a charge apportioned either among the whole people of the state, or those residing within certain districts, municipalities, or sections. It is required to be imposed, as we shall more fully explain hereafter, so that, if levied for the public charges of government, it shall be shared according to the estate, real and personal, which each person may possess; or, if raised to defray the cost of some local government of a public nature, it shall be borne by those who will receive some special and peculiar benefit or advantage which an expenditure of money for a public object may cause to those on whom the tax is assessed. An excise, on the other hand, is of a difference character. It is based on no rule of apportionment, or equality whatever. It is a fixed, absolute, and direct charge laid on merchandise, products, or commodities, without any regard to the amount of property belonging to those on whom it may fall, or to any supposed, relation between money expended for a public object and a special benefit occasioned to those by whom the charge is to be paid.”

* A tax levied in consideration of laboring could not said to be within the same class or object of merchandise, product, or commodity, thereby an excise would not be the correct tax to levy inconsideration of laboring.

* A tax levied uniformly in consideration of laboring would require consideration to the amount of property belonging to the worker, thereby an excise would not be the correct tax to levy incondideration of laboring.

"Taxes are divided into “direct,” under which designation would be included those which are assessed upon the property, person, business, income, etc., of those who are to pay them, and “indirect,” or those which are levied on commodities before they reach the consumer, and are paid by those upon whom they ultimately fall, not as taxes, but as part of the market price of the commodity."

"... The phrase [‘direct tax’] is understood to be limited to taxes on land and its appurtenances [attached “right-of-ways”], and on polls."

A ‘capitation tax’ class of tax is not the same thing as ‘direct tax’ class or a ‘poll-tax’ class of tax, although they all exist within the category of ‘direct taxation’. Each class of tax has a its own separate and distinct purpose or intention. This is the precise point in establishing various classes, types, or methods of taxation.

[Weston White]

Folks, the proof is in the pudding.

Let's revisit this in 5 years time. At that point WW can provide definitive proof as to whether or not his beliefs actually held up in the real world of the IRS and possibly the courts too.

Great, while at it ask why they IRS can never seem to produce something as simple as the signed assessment, notice and demand for tax, or the authority to issue a fine. That should be easy enough to accomplish, no? It is not like I am asking them to... "Show me the law!" Now am I?

[Cpt Banjo]

The legal definition of ‘direct taxes’ is:

“A direct tax is one which is demanded from the very person who, it is intended or desired, should pay it.”

Whose legal definition is this? Certainly not the Supreme Court's.

The legal definition of ‘indirect taxes’ is:

“Indirect taxes are those which are demanded from one person, in the expectation and intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of another.

"Indirect taxes are those demanded in the first instance from one person in the expectation and intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of another. “Ordinarily all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes.” – Pollock v. Farmer’s L. & T. Co..”"

Sigh... you're so dumb you can't see the logical fallacy. Saying that all taxes that can be shifted are indirect taxes is not the same thing as saying that all indirect taxes must be shiftable. (Weston: "All Buicks are cars, therefore all cars are Buicks.")

Moreover, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected shiftability as a necessary element of an indirect tax:

But it is asserted that it was decided in the income tax cases that, in order to determine whether a tax be direct within the meaning of the Constitution, it must be ascertained whether the one upon whom by law the burden of paying it is first cast can thereafter shift it to another person. If he cannot, the tax would then be direct in the constitutional sense, and, hence, however obvious in other respects it might be a duty, impost, or excise, it cannot be levied by the rule of uniformity, and must be apportioned. From this assumed premise it is argued that death duties cannot be shifted from the one on whom they are first cast by law, and therefore they are direct taxes requiring apportionment.

The fallacy is in the premise. It is true that in the income tax cases the theory of certain economists by which direct and indirect taxes are classified with reference to the ability to shift the same was adverted to. But this disputable theory was not the basis of the conclusion of the court. The constitutional meaning of the word direct was the matter decided. Considering that the constitutional rule of apportionment had its origin in the purpose to prevent taxes on persons solely because of their general ownership of property from being levied by any other rule than that of apportionment, two things were decided by the court: First, that no sound distinction existed between a tax levied on a person solely because of his general ownership of real property, and the same tax imposed solely because of his general ownership of personal property. Secondly, that the tax on the income derived from such property, real or personal, was the legal equivalent of a direct tax on the property from which said income was derived, and hence must be apportioned. These conclusions, however, lend no support to the contention that it was decided that duties, imposts and excises which are not the essential equivalent of a tax on property generally, real or personal, solely because of its ownership, must be converted into direct taxes, because it is conceived that it would be demonstrated by a close analysis that they could not be shifted from the person upon whom they first fall. The proposition now relied upon was considered and refuted in Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509 , 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522, where the court said ( p. 515, L. ed. p. 791, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 525):

'The commands of the Constitution in this, as in all other respects, must be obeyed; direct taxes must be apportioned, while indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the United States. But while yielding implicit obedience to these constitutional requirements, it is no part of the duty of this court to lessen, impede, or obstruct the exercise of the taxing power by merely abstruse and subtle distinctions as to the particular nature of a specified tax, where such distinction rests more upon the differing theories of political economists than upon the practical nature of the tax itself.

'In deciding upon the validity of a tax with reference to these requirements, no microscopic examination as to the purely economical or theoretical nature of the tax should be indulged in for the purpose of placing it in a category which would invalidate the tax. As a mere abstract, scientific, or economical problem, a particular tax might possibly be regarded as a direct tax, when as a practical matter pertaining to the actual operation of the tax it might quite plainly appear to be indirect. Under such circumstances, and while varying and disputable theories might be indulged as to the real nature of the tax, a court would not be justified, for the purpose of invalidating the tax, in placing it in a class different from that to which its practical results would consign it. Taxation is eminently practical, and is, in fact, brought to every man's door, and for the purpose of deciding upon its validity a tax should be regarded in its actual, practical results, rather than with reference to those theoretical or abstract ideas whose correctness is the subject of dispute and contradiction among those who are experts in the science of political economy.' Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1901)

Your definitions of excises are likewise unsupported by any judicial authority. Excises are not limited to taxes on merchandise, products, or commodities; they also apply to gifts, to the passage of property at death, and to the receipt of income.

[ASITStands]

You are ignorning the consideration of 26 USC 6020 ...

Aside from the fact I'm unsure what "ignorning" means ....

What part of 26 U.S.C. § 6020 am I not considering?

Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary

(a) Preparation of return by Secretary
If any person shall fail to make a return required by this title or by regulations prescribed thereunder, but shall consent to disclose all information necessary for the preparation thereof, then, and in that case, the Secretary may prepare such return, which, being signed by such person, may be received by the Secretary as the return of such person.

(b) Execution of return by Secretary
(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return
If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.
(2) Status of returns
Any return so made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes.

There are TWO parts to 26 U.S.C. § 6020, subsections (a) and (b).

In the first subsection, the taxpayer is in agreement with the disclosure of information and signs the prepared return. In the second subsection, the taxpayer is not in agreement.

In the second subsection, the Secretary prepares a return from information available.

That sounds like examination and deficiency procedures, wherein, the Secretary examines information filed by employers, and other payers, and any return filed by the taxpayer.

Sounds like Sec. 93, as amended by Sec. 118 of the Act of 1865.

The second subsection has another relevant provision, in that, it applies not only when a return is not filed, but in the event, a false or fraudulent return has been filed.

Think 'Cracking the Code' (i.e., "zero") returns. That's where 'CtC' fails.

Earth to Weston! Substitute returns do not have to be filed BEFORE examination or deficiency procedures. In fact, substitute returns FOLLOW deficiency procedures.

A substitute return begins with a "dummy" Form 1040 (i.e., a "blank" 1040 with taxpayer name, address, SSN only) but ends with a defaulted notice of deficiency and Form 13496

Form 13496 acts as the "signature" of the return. Go read the case law.

[Nikki]

Great, while at it ask why they IRS can never seem to produce something as simple as the signed assessment, notice and demand for tax, or the authority to issue a fine. That should be easy enough to accomplish, no? It is not like I am asking them to... "Show me the law!" Now am I?

Please show where they are required; by statute, regulation, or court decision; to do any of the above.

We won't hold our breath until you are able to do so.