Weston White on Frivolous Penalties (split from gottago's topic)

[Weston White]

Yea, the IRS definitely seems to being going into melt-down mode, they are sending my wife such letters as well, two within the same week, one for "correspondence" on a date that we have no record of sending them anything [Hmmm... I thought the penalty was only for returns not mere letters, go figure, guess that is more of my inability to comprehend simple sentence structure] and another for a 1040X we never sent them.

[Thule]

Just ignore Westy. He is heading for a record amount of friv-pens, and is just screaming louder and louder to convince him self that there is no monster under the bed and nothing bad is going to happen.

[Weston White]

Just ignore Westy. He is heading for a record amount of friv-pens, and is just screaming louder and louder to convince him self that there is no monster under the bed and nothing bad is going to happen.

That is by no means the record, are you serious? Besides that there is nothing they can do to collect, I have nothing to give them! ROFLMAO. What are they going to do levy my "wages" for the next 10-years? That would be funny now wouldn't it! See how long I am able to work when I can't afford to gas my crappy car or pay my rent, food, phone, electric, and gas bills.

[Weston White]

This may sound like a broken record, but frankly, you would be better served doing the following.

1. Have a nice nip of Jack Daniels. Just one.

2. Suck it up and redo ALL of your Federal tax returns for any and all years in which the IRS is interested. The previous years' tax tables and forms are on the IRS web site.

3. Here is the tough part. Do itt he IRS way and the IRS way only. Not your way, not the CtC way, not they way BillyBob the septic tank cleaner does it. Just do them the way the IRS wants. Take all allowable deductions, whether itemized or the flat amount. And do it straight up, do not try to include living expenses and such - just do it the way the IRS wants it done.

Heck, for all I know, you can do them all on 1040As, which makes things even simpler. And if you qualify for an Earned Income Credit (EIC), take it.

4. Now, how much would you owe or get back filing them the way the IRS wants? Is it less than 2 frivolous filing penalties? Is it less than 1 frivolous filing penalty? are you owed a net refund?. If you end up owing less than the various frivolous penalties and such (and I bet you will), read on WW.

5. Go to the IRS for a "come to Jesus meeting." Be remorseful, be contrite, be humble and present your newly completed/redone returnsd for the year(s) in question. Apologize. Ask them politely to accept your returns and see if they can mitigate or undo any of the frivolous penalties. Calmly accept their answer - good, bad indifferent. Zen.

6. Once the IRS accepts your new returns, repeat the process for your state income taxes, before they wise up and rain on your parade.

Let me be very clear on something WW, the steps noted above are meant to do one thing and one thing only - to get the 300-pound angry gorilla off your back and to do it with as little monetary pain to you. Anything else is absolute bullsh*t and a waste of time and energy.

You can protest taxes all day and all night long. Work with a PAC to get tax laws changed, protest in the streets, etc.

However, and this is the part you may tend to overlook - IT'S A LOT EASIER TO DO WITHOUT THE IRS ALL OVER YOU LIKE A SEX-CRAZED GORILLA!! The whole point of the game is to pay as little as possible, using every allowable deduction, while simultaneously keeping out of the line of fire or the IRS and their frivolous penalties.

it is a lot easier to protest taxes when you have the time and money and not spending all of both dealing with the IRS. Life is a whole lot easier, more enjoyable, more fun when you are not sideways with the IRS.

I do not care what you think of my advice, but I guarantee that if you follow it, you stand a far, far better chance than if you don't.

Yea, that is what I am going to do, I am going to take the advise of somebody that incessantly degenerates the common laborer as if they are lesser than thou. I tell you what you can rather just keep all the 1040's for yourself and wipe your bum with them as you gaze the horizon up on your high throne. That plan sounds much better to me, personally.

[Thule]

That is by no means the record, are you serious? .

Maybe not. But keep trying, you are heading the right way.

And, as a bonus, if you tick off people enough, they will put you in a place where you don't have to worry about gas bills for many years.

[Weston White]

That is by no means the record, are you serious? .

Maybe not. But keep trying, you are heading the right way.

And, as a bonus, if you tick off people enough, they will put you in a place where you don't have to worry about gas bills for many years.

No they would not do that, why limit my ability to be productive in society? For what purpose could that possibly serve?

[Thule]

No they would not do that, why limit my ability to be productive in society? For what purpose could that possibly serve?

I'll leave it there, so not to clutter up the thread and obscure Gottago's question.

[Nikki]

No they would not do that, why limit my ability to be productive in society? For what purpose could that possibly serve?

Sort of for the same reason that all the schools are now closed in Mexico -- to limit the spread of the infection.

[Weston White]

(I realize that I should probably post this on the "Tax Policy and Practice" section but am hoping it might get more readings here)

Today, we received 2 letters from the IRS penalizing us an additional $5000 each for frivolous returns related to tax year 2004 that were allegedly submitted by us in August 2007. Trouble is, we did not submit ANYTHING to them in August of 2007. We have not filed anything that could possibly be considered frivolous since mid-2006.

We did submit (in June 2007 during the OIC process) accurate returns for 2004 which were processed with the tax/penalties/interest assessed several months later. We do have an outstanding balance for that year.

I just don't understand this and the letters say that our only recourse is to pay the $10,000 and then take it up with the tax court. Sadly, I don't have 10K just laying around

Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom.

Try the Taxpayer's Advocate's office. They might not be able to actually DO anything, but they can collect all the relevant information and get it to you. In fact, if they see an error on IRS' part, they really can get it corrected.

Anybody else here catch that? They can't do anything, yet they can somehow manage to fix things. So do they work sort of like the PPT [the Whitehouse Plunge Protection Team]?

[Weston White]

Yea, that is what I am going to do, I am going to take the advise of somebody that incessantly degenerates the common laborer as if they are lesser than thou. I tell you what you can rather just keep all the 1040's for yourself and wipe your bum with them as you gaze the horizon up on your high throne. That plan sounds much better to me, personally.

You misunderstood me WW. I do not denigrate common laborers, I denigrate the stupid, a number of whom happen to be common laborers. But, I will also denigrate the rich, the powerful, the haughty, whomever, if they act stupid.

The advice I gave you regarding you tax situation was a device to try and help you potentially reduce and minimize the tidal wave of penalties, fines, and interest that is about to crash down on you. If you choose to ignore the advice, so be it. That is your right. But, do not complain when you get wallet-raped by the IRS for the rest of you natural life and possibly beyond.

As for "common labor," on my dad's side - great-grandfather worked on dairy farms most of his life. Grandfather was an electrician, dad picked fruit and nuts in orchards as a kid and teen during the Great Depression and WWII. On my mother's side - grand father was a day laborer and delivered propane and frandmother was a maid. Mom worked as a teller and in the campus bookstore at Stanford. I made money in jr. high and high school doing lawn care work after school, up to 6 houses a week. I still maintain my own yard and do almost all of my own home repairs.

Oh, one other thing WW, my great-grandparents, grandparents and parents, regardless of their economic conditions (which ranged from dirt poor immigrants to middle class) paid their taxes and did not try to shirk their duty or their obligations. And I can guarantee that some of them were far poorer than you, so your kvetching and antics hold no water with me.

No there is no misunderstanding, you pontificate, without any real thought or consideration mind you. You and all of your snide comments about the laboring class about doublewides. The fact is and always will be that taxation on ones total revenue is a direct tax, it is pointedly a tax upon them for existing in whatever capacity, one cannot live or have purpose without laboring, that is the natural process of living, the birds do it, the bees do it, and even educated MD's do it... however, though they might actually be taxable subjects for the purposes of their chosen "profession". What you prescribe and support, besides being wholly and obviously consistent with socialism, which is incompatible in a republican form of government is the taking away from something that serves to make one whole and without the ability to compensate their loss from another through varied or particular means, such as the raising of prices or ceasing to engage in future ventures which realized the taxation, etc., it is something otherwise entirely unavoidable.

The income tax is not some all inclusive form of taxation that fully encompasses the exchange of money from one party to another for whatever purpose, if this were so true, it would mean all other heads and classes of taxation were destroyed by the awesome power of the XVI Amendment. Obviously there is no level of support for such a wild and abrasive claim.

Simply, to tax a laborer is to tax a class of person, this requires the act of a direct tax, as it is direct taxes which affects real people, their realty and lands, direct taxes affects the core essence of what it means to be a productive viable living person, while indirect taxes effects the devised property of such productive living people. Direct taxes are meant to be levied only as a last resort as it affects them personally, while indirect taxes are merely the taxing of their accumulated fruits. To tax a persons labor or the purpose for laboring, Congress might thereafter tax them on their breathing, or their traveling, or their thought, or enjoyment, or procreation, their eating. Let this slide and come to see what silly forms of taxation the Congress will dream up over during the next 10, 20, 50, or 200 years. That is until the populace, have their fill and finally stand up with might and demand forceful retribution from a government that is suppose to be “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”.

Now as you can see [but blissfully choose to ignore] from the many early works I have posted time and time again, it is very clear that taxing labor was meant to be a direct tax [e.g. Black’s Law Dictionary, Wharton, the NYT Article which included within many quotations and citations, as well as the works of Cooley, Smith, and Gallatin, and even in the Convention itself you can see a hint of this logic regarding a poll-tax upon slaves in consideration of their monetary productivity], never did the Federalists make any objections to this issue as raised about taxing directly ones labor. And in Pollock quoting Hylton it was stated that it had always been considered inappropriate to levy taxes upon contracts and occupations in the context of direct taxation and never did the court address such topic in the view of indirect taxation…

“… "that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax. . . . It may be rightly affirmed, therefore, that, in the practical construction of the Constitution by Congress, direct taxes have been limited to taxes on land and appurtenances, and taxes on polls, or capitation taxes. …””

Now for a little example let’s pose a direct tax upon all common wage earners of 1,000 Dollars a head and let’s say that there are an approximate 150-million such class of persons within the USA. Such an imposition would net an approximate: $150,000,000,000.00. This is just meant as a quick example to show how effective direct taxation actually would be when used for such purposes. Though Congress does not want to implement such taxes because it forces them to be fiscally responsible and create budges ahead of time, have to actually explain themselves and their actions, keep accurate records, etc., etc., etc.. As well there could be imposed categorized direct taxes, such as taxing those adult males and females with revenue amounting between certain amounts at certain amounts, proportionately, e.g. under 20,000.00 $250.00, above 20,000.00-30,000.00 at $500.00, above 30,000.00-40,000.00 at $1,000.00, etc. or even apportion charges based upon categorized occupations, professions, such as blue collar, white collar, officials, executives, or pilots, janitors, doctors, attorneys, teachers, truck drivers, officer workers, entertainers, etc.. Again these are crude examples, though Congress could roughly approximate through data-mining to lend such an effect, though actual amounts would vary from State to State.


Further as stated… “… unless it be a capitation tax, upon persons, as persons, …”

Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 435 435 (1842)


Now prior to all of these Acts, such at the Acts of 1862, 1864, 1894, 1909, or 1913 and subsequent Acts it was stated:

Hamilton's Works, 848. Mr. Hamilton therefore clearly supported the law which Mr. Madison opposed, for the same reason that his friend Fisher Ames did, because it was an excise, and, as such, was specifically comprehended by the Constitution. Any loose expressions in definition of the word "direct," so far as conflicting with his well considered views in the Federalist, must be regarded as the liberty which the advocate usually thinks himself entitled to take with his subject. He gives, however, it appears to us, a definition which covers the question before us. A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution. And Mr. Hamilton, in his report on the public credit, in referring to contracts with citizens of a foreign country, said:

"This principle, which seems critically correct, would exempt as well the income as the capital of the property. It protects the use as effectually as the thing. What, in fact, is property but a fiction without the beneficial use of it? In many cases, indeed, the income or annuity is the property itself."

Nor are we impressed with the contention that, because in the four instances in which the power of direct taxation has been exercised, Congress did not see fit, for reasons of expediency, to levy a tax upon personalty, this amounts to such a practical construction of the Constitution that the power did not exist that we must regard ourselves bound by it. We should regret to be compelled to hold the powers of the general government thus restricted, and certainly cannot accede to the idea that the Constitution has become weakened by a particular course of inaction under it.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)


Main Entry: per•son•al•i•ty

1 a: the quality or state of being a person b: personal existence
2 a: the condition or fact of relating to a particular person ; specifically : the condition of referring directly to or being aimed disparagingly or hostilely at an individual b: an offensively personal remark <angrily resorted to personalities>
3 a: the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group ; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics b: a set of distinctive traits and characteristics <the energetic personality of the city>
4 a: distinction or excellence of personal and social traits ; also : a person having such quality ...

So the question is what does it mean to be a person? And I trust that we are all adult enough to realize the answer... even if some here do not want to admit to it.

[Cpt Banjo]

Nor are we impressed with the contention that, because in the four instances in which the power of direct taxation has been exercised, Congress did not see fit, for reasons of expediency, to levy a tax upon personalty, this amounts to such a practical construction of the Constitution that the power did not exist that we must regard ourselves bound by it. We should regret to be compelled to hold the powers of the general government thus restricted, and certainly cannot accede to the idea that the Constitution has become weakened by a particular course of inaction under it.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)


Main Entry: per•son•al•i•ty

1 a: the quality or state of being a person b: personal existence
2 a: the condition or fact of relating to a particular person ; specifically : the condition of referring directly to or being aimed disparagingly or hostilely at an individual b: an offensively personal remark <angrily resorted to personalities>
3 a: the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group ; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics b: a set of distinctive traits and characteristics <the energetic personality of the city>
4 a: distinction or excellence of personal and social traits ; also : a person having such quality ...

Mr. White, the word "personalty" does not mean "personality". I suggest you master basic reading skills before attempting to discuss taxation law.

[Famspear]

The fact is and always will be that taxation on ones total revenue is a direct tax [ . . . . ]

No. It's an indirect tax, an excise.

. . . . it is pointedly a tax upon them for existing in whatever capacity [ . . . . ]

No, it's not.

one cannot live or have purpose without laboring, that is the natural process of living, the birds do it, the bees do it, and even educated MD's do it... however, though they might actually be taxable subjects for the purposes of their chosen "profession".

Pretty much general agreement on that point.

What you prescribe and support, besides being wholly and obviously consistent with socialism, which is incompatible in a republican form of government is the taking away from something that serves to make one whole and without the ability to compensate their loss from another through varied or particular means, such as the raising of prices or ceasing to engage in future ventures which realized the taxation, etc., it is something otherwise entirely unavoidable.

Political opinion of Weston White. This is not legal analysis, Weston.

The income tax is not some all inclusive form of taxation that fully encompasses the exchange of money from one party to another for whatever purpose . . .

That's actually correct. For example, the receipt of loan proceeds is not income, so it's not taxed as income.

. . . . if this were so true, it would mean all other heads and classes of taxation were destroyed by the awesome power of the XVI Amendment. Obviously there is no level of support for such a wild and abrasive claim.

You're the only one mentioning this "wild and abrasive claim" (the incorrect claim that the income tax is some all inclusive form of taxation that fully encompasses the exchange of money "for whatever purpose" -- clearly, no one here has ever claimed that, and no court has ever ruled that way). Thank you for shooting down what is, in a sense, your own stupid strawman argument, Weston.

Simply, to tax a laborer is to tax a class of person

Technically correct. But the federal income tax does not tax the laborer -- it taxes only the laborer's income. This is apparently a subtle distinction for you, Weston, one that you are emotionally unwilling to accept as being legally significant. But it is legally significant.

.....this requires the act of a direct tax, as it is direct taxes which affects real people, their realty and lands, direct taxes affects the core essence of what it means to be a productive viable living person, while indirect taxes effects the devised property of such productive living people.

...blah blah blah.... More political opinion from Weston.....

Direct taxes are meant to be levied only as a last resort as it affects them personally, while indirect taxes are merely the taxing of their accumulated fruits. To tax a persons labor or the purpose for laboring, Congress might thereafter tax them on their breathing, or their traveling, or their thought, or enjoyment, or procreation, their eating. Let this slide and come to see what silly forms of taxation the Congress will dream up over during the next 10, 20, 50, or 200 years.

...blah blah blah.... More political opinion from Weston.....

That is until the populace, have their fill and finally stand up with might and demand forceful retribution from a government that is suppose to be “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”.

.....Oh beautiful
For spacious skies
For amber waves of grain....
For purple mountain majesties...

Now as you can see [but blissfully choose to ignore] from the many early works I have posted time and time again, it is very clear that taxing labor was meant to be a direct tax [e.g. Black’s Law Dictionary, Wharton, the NYT Article which included within many quotations and citations, as well as the works of Cooley, Smith, and Gallatin, and even in the Convention itself you can see a hint of this logic regarding a poll-tax upon slaves in consideration of their monetary productivity], never did the Federalists make any objections to this issue as raised about taxing directly ones labor.

Sell it to Peter Hendrickson, Weston.

And in Pollock quoting Hylton it was stated that it had always been considered inappropriate to levy taxes upon contracts and occupations in the context of direct taxation and never did the court address such topic in the view of indirect taxation…

Weesssssstonnnnn..... Oh Weessstoonnnn..... Earth calling.......

Now for a little example let’s pose a direct tax upon all common wage earners of 1,000 Dollars a head and let’s say that there are an approximate 150-million such class of persons within the USA. Such an imposition would net an approximate: $150,000,000,000.00. This is just meant as a quick example to show how effective direct taxation actually would be when used for such purposes.

Write to Congress, Weston.

Though Congress does not want to implement such taxes because it forces them to be fiscally responsible and create budges ahead of time, have to actually explain themselves and their actions, keep accurate records, etc., etc., etc.. As well there could be imposed categorized direct taxes, such as taxing those adult males and females with revenue amounting between certain amounts at certain amounts, proportionately, e.g. under 20,000.00 $250.00, above 20,000.00-30,000.00 at $500.00, above 30,000.00-40,000.00 at $1,000.00, etc. or even apportion charges based upon categorized occupations, professions, such as blue collar, white collar, officials, executives, or pilots, janitors, doctors, attorneys, teachers, truck drivers, officer workers, entertainers, etc..

Write to Congress, Weston.

Etc., etc., etc.

So the question is what does it mean to be a person? And I trust that we are all adult enough to realize the answer... even if some here do not want to admit to it.

[Famspear]

Nor are we impressed with the contention that, because in the four instances in which the power of direct taxation has been exercised, Congress did not see fit, for reasons of expediency, to levy a tax upon personalty, this amounts to such a practical construction of the Constitution that the power did not exist that we must regard ourselves bound by it. We should regret to be compelled to hold the powers of the general government thus restricted, and certainly cannot accede to the idea that the Constitution has become weakened by a particular course of inaction under it.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)


Main Entry: per•son•al•i•ty

1 a: the quality or state of being a person b: personal existence
2 a: the condition or fact of relating to a particular person ; specifically : the condition of referring directly to or being aimed disparagingly or hostilely at an individual b: an offensively personal remark <angrily resorted to personalities>
3 a: the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group ; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics b: a set of distinctive traits and characteristics <the energetic personality of the city>
4 a: distinction or excellence of personal and social traits ; also : a person having such quality ...

Mr. White, the word "personalty" does not mean "personality". I suggest you master basic reading skills before attempting to discuss taxation law.

Good grief, Weston......

[Weston White]

Nor are we impressed with the contention that, because in the four instances in which the power of direct taxation has been exercised, Congress did not see fit, for reasons of expediency, to levy a tax upon personalty, this amounts to such a practical construction of the Constitution that the power did not exist that we must regard ourselves bound by it. We should regret to be compelled to hold the powers of the general government thus restricted, and certainly cannot accede to the idea that the Constitution has become weakened by a particular course of inaction under it.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)


Main Entry: per•son•al•i•ty

1 a: the quality or state of being a person b: personal existence
2 a: the condition or fact of relating to a particular person ; specifically : the condition of referring directly to or being aimed disparagingly or hostilely at an individual b: an offensively personal remark <angrily resorted to personalities>
3 a: the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group ; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics b: a set of distinctive traits and characteristics <the energetic personality of the city>
4 a: distinction or excellence of personal and social traits ; also : a person having such quality ...

Mr. White, the word "personalty" does not mean "personality". I suggest you master basic reading skills before attempting to discuss taxation law.

Oh my mistake, that is what happens when working on to many things at once. No biggy. My many points still stand, regardless.

personalty
Main Entry: per·son·al·ty

personal property

Main Entry: personal property

property other than real property consisting of things temporary or movable : chattels

Main Entry: chat·tel

1 : an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property
2 : slave, bondman

[LPC]

Mr. White, the word "personalty" does not mean "personality".

Oh yeah, right.

Next you're going to claim that there's a difference between "realty" and "reality."

We're like the Bushies. We make our realty.

[Weston White]

No. It's an indirect tax, an excise.

No the Forefathers and historical economists of the time, disagree with you. I think they would know much better than your and your CPA text books... that do not even touch upon this issue.

You're the only one mentioning this "wild and abrasive claim" (the incorrect claim that the income tax is some all inclusive form of taxation that fully encompasses the exchange of money "for whatever purpose" -- clearly, no one here has ever claimed that, and no court has ever ruled that way). Thank you for shooting down what is, in a sense, your own stupid strawman argument, Weston.

No that is exactly what you are saying, you are saying that if you get money from another person it is a gain or profit, regardless of the source, as it were; so long as there was not a loss incurred that is, though laborers are excluded from this exception, for some strange reason... meanwhile, through some strange twist in fate, corporations are treated as persons, while being protected from actual persons.

Technically correct. But the federal income tax does not tax the laborer -- it taxes only the laborer's income. This is apparently a subtle distinction for you, Weston, one that you are emotionally unwilling to accept as being legally significant. But it is legally significant.

That is what the income tax is doing, by your status quo standards. it is taxing people for no other reason than the fact that they are working, that means it is touching directly upon them as a class in society, the working class... as apposed to the now non-existent slave class, ergo that is the precise description of what is called a poll-tax. SCOTUS has stated taxing the shadow is the same as taxing the source and that there is no distinction in taxing the substance of the same form e.g. there is no difference in taxing the grape or the raisin, in contrast to taxing the wine created by the grape.

And BTW, nice to see you are up so up on your replies, though I am sure you are already aware. I guess you feel you should get paid more per post, huh? So what are they feeding you now $2.50 per post?

[Weston White]

Tell you what Weston, let's see where each of us is in 5 years.

My bet is that IF you are lucky you will strill be driving the same POS, salvaged title merde-mobile you have now, living in some little cr*p-box apartment/shotgun shack/hovel, divorced, living a sad, small, mean, pathetic little life because the IRS is garnishing just about every dollar you make to pay various penalties and fines you have racked up because you act like a petulant 4-year old that has been told no. Brilliant. In fact, you will probably be working several part time jobs because no one will ire you full time and deal with your lunatic ravings and all of the IRS hassles you bring. Hell, you won't be smart enough or employable enough to even live in a single wide.

That's if you are lucky. More likely is that you will careen down the path you are on and end up in jail, stripped of all freedoms and rights and when done with that will be living a life that makes the lucky scenario above look like living on the Riviera. heck you will probably be living in a Riviera.

And through it all, the ONLY person that can be blamed for your thoroughly cr*p-tastic life style will be looking back at you from a mirror each and every morning until you shuffle off this mortal coil and your corpse becomes a ward of the state, cremated and the remains sequestered in a potter's field somewhere, having added nothing, having done nothing, having helped no one, as your mania consumed you causing you to shriek and gibber at a world that you think owes you, but which in reality doesn't owe you a thing. A life wasted, with NOTHING to show for it, except a legacy of failure and futility that even now none care about a number that will be even smaller after you go to the great beyond.

WOW!! That sounds.........oh, what's the word? Pathetic.

Now, in five years, I will be worth more than I am now. Really nice houses, decent cars, doing what I want to do, when i want to do it, with whomever I want, anywhere in the world and (here's the bonus), I will not have the IRS riding and beating me like a rented red-headed, government mule. I will still be working at a job I like, with people I like, with no hassles for me or the company from the IRS. This is the worst case scenario.

Best case involves job-hopping into an even better paying gig.

And when I shuffle off this mortal coil, I will go knowing the families I have personally helped, all the people I have indirectly helped and the succeeding generations of college students that will be able to go to college because of trusts and subsequent scholarships I will have established. Sure I may be dead, but I have the potential to aid and assist people for generations to come, long, long after I have died.

WOW!! That sounds..........oh, what's the word. Spiffy.


A number of people on this site have given you sage and sound advice and methods to get right with the government over your tax issues, but because no one is telling you what you want to hear (and they NEVER, EVER will) you choose to shriek, scream, yell and throw a hissy-fit like a spoiled, petulant, 4-year old.

I wash my hands of you. You are on your own. I turn my back to you and consider you dead.

And there is the reply I was expectating! How cognitive!

[Famspear]

No the Forefathers and historical economists of the time, disagree with you. I think they would know much better than your and your CPA text books... that do not even touch upon this issue.

No the historical economists -- like Adam Smith -- do not disagree with me. Adam Smith never claimed, for example, that his definition of "direct tax" was also the definition of "direct tax" for purposes of the U.S. Constitution. You tax protesters are the ones making that claim. And no, the Forefathers do not disagree with me. I don't make the rules. I just lay down the law for you - literally.

. . . .you are saying that if you get money from another person it is a gain or profit, regardless of the source, as it were . . . .

No. For example, if I borrow $100 from the bank, the receipt of that money is not "income" to me under the Code. It's not profit, and it's not gain.

. . . . so long as there was not a loss incurred that is, though laborers are excluded from this exception, for some strange reason... meanwhile, through some strange twist in fate, corporations are treated as persons, while being protected from actual persons.

That is what the income tax is doing, by your status quo standards. it is taxing people for no other reason than the fact that they are working. . . .

No, as other regulars here have noted, you can work all you want and never incur a federal income tax -- if that's all that's happening to you. What is being taxed is the INCOME you realize from that work, not the physical act of working itself. You are quite wrong.

. . . . that means it is touching directly upon them as a class in society, the working class... as apposed to the now non-existent slave class, ergo that is the precise description of what is called a poll-tax.

No, that's not the precise description of a poll tax. However, to use an example: if you were taxed as an individual (say, $100 per person per year) regardless of whether you worked or not and regardless of whether you realized income or not, that would be a poll tax (a kind of direct tax).

SCOTUS has stated taxing the shadow is the same as taxing the source and that there is no distinction in taxing the substance of the same form e.g. there is no difference in taxing the grape or the raisin, in contrast to taxing the wine created by the grape.

How poetic. SCOTUS has never ruled that the federal income tax is a capitation (whether poll tax or otherwise). SCOTUS has never ruled that the federal income tax on compensation for services is a "direct tax."

And BTW, nice to see you are up so up on your replies, though I am sure you are already aware. I guess you feel you should get paid more per post, huh? So what are they feeding you now $2.50 per post?

If I could get paid for this, I would be very happy. Dream on.

[Weston White]

No the historical economists -- like Adam Smith -- do not disagree with me. Adam Smith never claimed, for example, that his definition of "direct tax" was also the definition of "direct tax" for purposes of the U.S. Constitution. You tax protesters are the ones making that claim. And no, the Forefathers do not disagree with me. I don't make the rules. I just lay down the law for you - literally.

No Adam Smith never specifically clarified what was actually meant by the phrase, 'direct taxes'. As this was the question being posed within all of those SCOTUS cases, in our Nations early history, the question never was what is meant by capitation or poll taxes, as that was well known, the question is what is meant by other direct taxes. However, there seemed to be a divide between income taxes and poll taxes both being included within the use of the phrase ‘other direct taxes’. Adam Smith did clarify that taxing labor is to be a direct tax and the Forefathers are the ones that worked out the instrument [the U.S. Constitution] to carry out such forms of taxation, based very obviously upon the writings of Adam Smith and others… this is because all Adam Smith really did in Wealth of Nations was to encapsulate (through essentially advanced theoretical practice and logic) what was already known by all, meaning that such classes of taxation were nothing new, they were in practice long before the ratification of our Constitution in England and France and had been in insistence since Rome. All that has changed is their application, not their definition. Direct taxes served as a means to tax those that did not have their own property, in the early conception of taxation; while the income tax served to tax those that possessed their own property.

No. For example, if I borrow $100 from the bank, the receipt of that money is not "income" to me under the Code. It's not profit, and it's not gain.

OK, now you are talking about credit or a loan, what is amounts to essentially new debt, not relevant to this discussion. As a debt is never a gain nor a profit. Though if you were to use that to earn “income” that income would be taxable, it works the same with labor, though for very different reasons. Take your money from working and earn “income” with it, that income would be taxable, though your labor money never it. Otherwise again you have a tax that is all inclusive, all sides are taxed, the source and the gain and never are you compensated for the taxation and never are your losses deducted or considered.



Yea, exactly!

No, as other regulars here have noted, you can work all you want and never incur a federal income tax -- if that's all that's happening to you. What is being taxed is the INCOME you realize from that work, not the physical act of working itself. You are quite wrong.

And what do you think working or laboring is, exactly? Have you completely fooled yourself into believing that doing chores or favors or lending a hand or volunteering is to be synonymous with labor and work? Much in the same way that you believe ‘serving’ is the exact same as laboring (see, serving implies a duty or a contracted obligation of sorts)? As well SCOTUS has stated taxing the shadow is no different than taxing the source. For the uninitiated this translates into taxing something or anything that is brought in by laboring holds no difference than taxing the act of laboring itself, period. Also, income is not revenue, it is not called the revenue tax it is called the income tax. Further, taxing one’s entire revenue or stock is a direct tax! If you are working or laboring you are doing it for something excepted in return, otherwise you are repaying a debt to somebody, earning your keep, or are a slave.


As stated in POLLOCK:

4. Whether Particular Taxes Are Direct or Indirect – a. On Income. – A tax upon one’s whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution.

…

The federal statutes annotated [1905]
http://books.google.com/books?id=eN04AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA306

No, that's not the precise description of a poll tax. However, to use an example: if you were taxed as an individual (say, $100 per person per year) regardless of whether you worked or not and regardless of whether you realized income or not, that would be a poll tax (a kind of direct tax).

No that is utter silliness, sure such a tax could be laid in general, though that is not the only method such a taxes can be levied. It is as always rather amusing that you lend such magnitude to the income tax, though so very limit direct taxation to such strictness.

Though to humor your example how is exactly is an unemployed person to pay such taxes, being they have nothing to offer in payment? What would be the desired effectiveness in levying such thoughtless a tax? Though realistically this is why when such direct taxes are laid, only a certain percentage is expected to pay, such as 75%. Though such taxes appear to still be in use, see: http://www.sussexcountyonline.com/news/ ... 01502.html

And yes that is the exact description of what a poll tax is:

POLL-TAX.
A capitation tax: a tax of a specific sum levied upon each person within the jurisdiction of the taxing power and within a certain class (as, all males of a certain age, etc.) without reference to his property or lack of it.

CAPITATION TAX.
[1] A poll tax. An imposition levied upon the person simply, without any reference to his property, real or personal, or to any business in which he may be engaged, or to any employment which he may follow.

[2] A tax or imposition raised on each person in consideration of his labor, industry, office, rank, etc. It is a very ancient kind of tribute and answers to what the Latins called “tributum,” by which taxes on persons are distinguished from taxes on merchandise called “vectigalia.” Wharton

How poetic. SCOTUS has never ruled that the federal income tax is a capitation (whether poll tax or otherwise). SCOTUS has never ruled that the federal income tax on compensation for services is a "direct tax."

Correct, though SCOTUS has ruled upon what a income tax is, it is an excise tax, and SCOTUS has stated what an excise tax is, as have our Forefathers and as has historical economists and never had such definitions included any mention of the common laborer or working man, in fact they have always specifically omitted any mention or notion of such blight, in fact if it were not for 26 USC itself, you would have absolutely nothing to base your assertions upon, nothing at all. The fact is that all forms of indirect taxation is always something dealing with commerce, trade, corporate privilege, stocks and insurance, realized gain and profit, occupational privilege… it is all rather specific.

If I could get paid for this, I would be very happy. Dream on.

Oh, sure PDF forum posts is quite the normal and expected behavior now isn't it? I do it all the time myself in fact.

[Weston White]

“I have always thought PH [Peter Hendrickson] to be a jackass...though I had never actually told him so until one of my more recent emails to him (never has he bothered to respond, because he is a liar and chickenhead…”-Former PH devotee, Weston White

And no I was never a PH devotee, I was a studier of CtC, that was the extend of it though. Henderickson and his "clan" can go get bend.