Another Edition of Stupid CTC Questions answered!

[Gregg]

Well, it's been about time. But before we begin, I have to say I went over to LH2 today and I'm ready to say that Richard614 is officially nuts. Check it out if you get a minute.

Today's first question is from New Up and Coming OWL candidate, Mountain of Fire. In the past we've seen that this genius is out of work, itinerant, has been offered a job but refuses to take it because they insist he fill out a W4, I9 and other forms. He doesn't want health insurance because he thinks Doctors are big scammers in the employ of drug companies and have no interest in keeping us healthy. In short, he's got the full on deluxe conspiracy delusion package. He's also racked up $20,000 in friv penalties so far! Today, he asks advice for going deeper into his own version of professional success, and we pick it up there....

On the 1040 we see the wages section. It directs us to attach the W-2's if we indeed have wages (wages=income). So all of the form states "NO INCOME" but then we want to send the W-2's as a safety factor thinking they will not process the 1040.

If we send conflciting information a W-2 when indeed we had NO "wages", and stated ZERO, we are creating a controversy and thus a chance at a big fat friv pen.

It seems to my young ctc mind this is a BIG mistake.

You may have had an intelligent thought there, you may not have recognized it.

Now the 4852 issue. The 4852 corrects errors I contend on the so called "employers" part, so I try to correct THEIR record, just to help them out (sarcastic) and bring me back my property, BUT they have not issued a W-2c and therefore we have another conflict, or controversy.

So the process (irs) sends a letter, they can't process (due to NO W-2's) this is our invite to engage in frivilous situational words and their arts (don't wanna do that), so they never get around to it. We want our property so we inquire, asking why, who, how, what, and where.

See the (irs) is confused if we send the W-2 and wonder if we have lost our minds (rightfully so). Why would we ask to have our wages returned to us IF indeed we claim ZERO, and have none on our own self assessment 1040?

I say they are confused easily enough, stop sending conflicting reports. If you do have wages be sure to send the W-2, if the comapny "employer" as they say incorrectly filed the wrong numbers and yours do not match YES correct that, but do not base your claim on their making a mistake and filing a W-3. Let the irs take that up with those guys, That is NOT your business at all. If they still don't send your property back notice them.

How's that working out for ya?

What's everyones experience about this? I mean it seems common sense. I think we get frivilous when using documents that create conflict, and are charged the friv pens. What else can they do until we unspin the web we have confused them with?

The irs is simply asking DID YOU have wages and or income, are you federally connected? When we right zero I think they know our answer, and it's our assessment, and it's true and correct to the best of our knowledge. We cannot contradict ourselves and not expect them not to be confused.

They're not confused, you're just retarded

If they want to follow this into another realm we remain neutral, we aren't legal sidewinders (we may be) but we don't claim to be and spout laws, mostly ones which are not even positive. We just ask questions, and keep asking them to send us our property, no demands, no legal disputes, just ask them where the activity is that makes us liable, and agreeable to pay any liablity as long as they can support their claim.

The "activity that makes us liable" is getting a paycheck, Sparky. Y'all need to wrap your brain around that.

The irs is not the holders of the property, nor is the social security admin. The US treasury unknowingly took hold of our money, and they just need to know, and then once they realize they need to send a draft on their account so we can redeem it. Am I oversimplifying? I suspect as much as I analyze everything, for once I may be on a simple less complex path here. I feel relaxed and I'm not pissed off right now, which makes me unable to see my options and opportunies at times. Hey I just want my property.

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

MOF

Oversimplifying? nah....

[Quixote]

The irs is not the holders of the property, nor is the social security admin.

He has, probably by accident, stumbled across the truth again. Neither IRS nor SSA has his money.

The US treasury unknowingly took hold of our money, ...

No, Treasury did that knowingly.

... and they just need to know, and then once they realize they need to send a draft on their account so we can redeem it.

Absolutely. All you have to do is convince the IRS to authorize FMS to send that draft.

[Pottapaug1938]

Gregg: The "activity that makes us liable" is getting a paycheck, Sparky. Y'all need to wrap your brain around that."

Mountain of Fire (Feeble Flicker of Fire would be more appropriate) will have a tough time doing that. Wrapping a brain like this around a truth like that is like asking a hamster to wrap its tail around a basketball.

[mutter]

Gregg: The "activity that makes us liable" is getting a paycheck, Sparky. Y'all need to wrap your brain around that."

Mountain of Fire (Feeble Flicker of Fire would be more appropriate) will have a tough time doing that. Wrapping a brain like this around a truth like that is like asking a hamster to wrap its tail around a basketball.

there is no activity that makes you liable. Receiving taxable income makes you liable and receiving is not an activity. that logic is from the delusion of a federal priviledge nexus.

[Pottapaug1938]

Gregg: The "activity that makes us liable" is getting a paycheck, Sparky. Y'all need to wrap your brain around that."

Mountain of Fire (Feeble Flicker of Fire would be more appropriate) will have a tough time doing that. Wrapping a brain like this around a truth like that is like asking a hamster to wrap its tail around a basketball.

there is no activity that makes you liable. Receiving taxable income makes you liable and receiving is not an activity. that logic is from the delusion of a federal priviledge nexus.

More "magic word" games, mutter. Please reread what Gregg wrote. You get a paycheck, you receive income. You receive income, you pay taxes on it unless a provision of the law specifically excludes the income from taxation (such as the exclusion from income tax for those who do not receive sufficient income).

[Lambkin]

Aren't you two agreeing?

[grixit]

The advice to "not engage" "not create conflict", etc, is like advising someone who's totally outclassed going into a judo match to just lie down and not move. Thing is, although the rules of judo tournaments favor winning by throwing or submission, if nothing else, an old fashioned pin is acceptable too. So yeah, avoiding W2s and so forth will keep you from getting dumped on your head, so the feds will just kneel on your chest instead.

Unless of course, what you thought was a judo match turns out to be the WWE. In that case you get body slammed first.

[Pottapaug1938]

Aren't you two agreeing?

If you are talking about me and mutter, no. Mutter's statement, as quoted in my post, revolves around the assertion that "there is no activity that makes you liable". As Gregg pointed out, the mere activity of receiving income makes you liable to pay income tax unless you can show a legal, legitimate reason why you shouldn't have to pay it.

[Lambkin]

Aren't you two agreeing?

If you are talking about me and mutter, no. Mutter's statement, as quoted in my post, revolves around the assertion that "there is no activity that makes you liable". As Gregg pointed out, the mere activity of receiving income makes you liable to pay income tax unless you can show a legal, legitimate reason why you shouldn't have to pay it.

I think you misinterpreted his post but I guess he'll have to clear that up. He described the "federal nexus" as a "delusion" and said:

Receiving taxable income makes you liable

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that when he said "receiving taxable income", it left me with the impression that the followup would be something like "if I receive a paycheck in return for my labor, that income is not taxable". At any rate, mutter can set us straight, if desired.

[Imalawman]

I think that when he said "receiving taxable income", it left me with the impression that the followup would be something like "if I receive a paycheck in return for my labor, that income is not taxable". At any rate, mutter can set us straight, if desired.

yeah, I took it as Mutter being correct in that the mere act of receiving taxable income is enough to create a tax liability. I think you're both agreeing.

[Famspear]

Yeah, I think mutter is right. "Receiving income" is not, strictly speaking an "activity." What is being taxed is, in a manner of speaking, an event -- the realization of income. Working to earn the compensation is an "activity," but again it's not the "activity" itself that is being taxed. As someone here in Quatloos noted recently, you can "work" all you want and never have a federal income tax liability therefrom -- if you don't realize income as a result of that work.

Having a solid gold meteorite fall out of the sky into my back yard might constitute an income realization event (and a taxable event) for federal income tax purposes -- but that doesn't mean I'm engaged in an activity (i.e., "having the good fortune of experiencing a solid gold meteorite falling into my back yard" is not really an "activity" for federal income tax purposes).

Rather, it is the income realization event (the section 61 event) that ultimately results (after considering deductions) in a positive "taxable income" amount under section 63, that results in tax liability.

[Gregg]

I originally said, it's not working, I said, "getting a paycheck"

[Gregg]

Our next question is likely headed to Domestic Relations,

Help!
Just got home from the emergency room and a Notice of levy was sent to my wife work for 2003 saying they are going to levy her salary and income for money they say she owes. How do I rrespond. She's been trusting me to take care of this , and I am failing. she is hysterical. It's Form668-W(c).What do I do guys?

Wait for E-Harmony to run the free communication weekend special and try to find a new wife in 3 days or less.

[Kimokeo]

Mountain of Fire (Feeble Flicker of Fire would be more appropriate) will have a tough time doing that. Wrapping a brain like this around a truth like that is like asking a hamster to wrap its tail around a basketball.


It's not as hard as you think. I think Boo could have done it, but Minsc would have thought you were abusing his little buddy.

[Arthur Rubin]

we aren't legal sidewinders

[Dr. Caligari]

Pick whichever definition suits you best.

I prefer this Sidewinder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrp94IU3 ... re=related

[LPC]

Mountain of Fire (Feeble Flicker of Fire would be more appropriate)

Molehill of Ashes?

Mound of Tinder?

Pile of Sparks?

Dunghill of Flickers?

Pit of Smoldering?

Volcano of Vapor?

Piddle of Tepid?

Foothill of Warm?

[grixit]

A sidewinder is also a move where you start in a half crouch with your arm down and twisted, then you straighten up and make a quarter turn into a roundhouse punch. It's an awsome move-- unless your opponent isn't drunk and either dodges or steps in on you. Usually it occurs in contexts where both parties are drunk.

[Quixote]

KarlOS on the LH forum

FACT #1:
The Federal Income Tax is an EXCISE Tax imposed on federal privilege.

- This is PROVEN with numerous AUTHORITATIVE DECISIONS of the United States Supreme Court.

None of which Karl can recall at the moment.

FACT #2:
The Federal Income Tax was instituted by the Abraham Lincoln Administration in 1862.

- This is PROVEN by the ACTUAL DOCUMENTS from the time.

No, a federal income tax return was instituted in 1862. The current one was instituted in 1913.

FACT #3:
The 16th Amendment is IRRELEVANT.

- This is PROVEN, again, by AUTHORITATIVE DECISIONS of the United States Supreme Court.

Then why bring it up?

FACT #4:
Occupations of COMMON RIGHT are NOT Taxable.

- Need I say again that this is PROVEN by AUTHORITATIVE DECISIONS of the Courts?

No, but actual cites might be nice.

How many FACTS can you come up with that PROVES THE TRUTH?

I'll go out on a limb here and say that all facts prove some truth.

The point here is to ELIMINATE the perceived need to reference and argue the law. While it is true that we all KNOW what the law says and means, we ARE NOT capable of arguing it. Period.

As Karl has admirably demonstrated.

That's an attorney's job.

What do you think an attorney will do when you walk into their office, drop these FACTS (among many others) on their desk, and ask them a SIMPLE question:

"Is this true?"

Have you even bothered to do this? I have. The silence was deafening.

As the lawyer in question waffles between calling Security and bolting for the exit.

FORGET THE LAW and STICK TO THE FACTS.

Or do what Pete does and forget both.

What about "income"? There was a very good post by RichardF614 (if memory serves) that PROVED how the United States Supreme Court had AUTHORITATIVELY defined the term.

Maybe that's why he was band.

What about your State Representatives? Have you contacted them and asked them to CONFIRM or DENY these FACTS?

If not, WHY NOT?

If I read Pete correctly (and that can be difficult sometimes), THIS is what he wants this forum to be. A meeting place where the FACTS are presented and then PROVEN with AUTHORITATIVE DECISIONS.

No, what Pete wants the forum to be is a place where wild conjectures are presented and then praised as profound insights.

How can we accomplish this NOW? Simple...

Create a thread for EACH CHAPTER of CtC, present the FACTS in the FIRST POST, and PROVE THE FACTS in subsequent posts.

Those should be short threads.

If you choose to quote the law, PROVE the claim with AUTHORITATIVE decisions of the Courts.

Do as I say, not as I do.

To my mind, it really is that simple.

KarlOS

p.s. I'll apologize for the extreme brevity, but I've got to head off to "the job".

I wonder what "the job" is a euphemism for?