Triumph of the PRA Argument

[fortinbras]

The PRA argument has NEVER succeeded. And, if it ever did succeed in a court case, you can be sure that Congress, the IRS, and the OMB would act immediately to close up that loophole.

[ASITStands]

The PRA argument has NEVER succeeded. And, if it ever did succeed in a court case, you can be sure that Congress, the IRS, and the OMB would act immediately to close up that loophole.

Consider United States v. Hatch, 919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990) in which an argument based upon the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 most definitely did succeed. Imagine that!

[Judge Roy Bean]

The PRA argument has NEVER succeeded. And, if it ever did succeed in a court case, you can be sure that Congress, the IRS, and the OMB would act immediately to close up that loophole.

Consider United States v. Hatch, 919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990) in which an argument based upon the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 most definitely did succeed. Imagine that!

I believe he (fortinbras) was referring to the PRA argument as raised by tax protesters.

[grixit]

Doesn't matter, all of you are a bunch of Communists who have failed in your attempts to convince this freedom loving individual that my fight is not worth anything. I bet you don't even know HOW this country was formed......well guess what, IT WAS A TAX REVOLT, douche bags!!! So I hereby poop on your Commie comments and hope you all enjoy reading the Communist Manifesto that you have sitting on your night stand.

Or you'll hold your breath until you turn blue?

[bmielke]

Doesn't matter, all of you are a bunch of Communists who have failed in your attempts to convince this freedom loving individual that my fight is not worth anything. I bet you don't even know HOW this country was formed......well guess what, IT WAS A TAX REVOLT, douche bags!!! So I hereby poop on your Commie comments and hope you all enjoy reading the Communist Manifesto that you have sitting on your night stand.

Or you'll hold your breath until you turn blue?

I think TS67 took his ball and went home. Or maybe to a site that will validate his crazy ideas anyway for a while he was responding right away now he seems to have left.

[ASITStands]

The PRA argument has NEVER succeeded. And, if it ever did succeed in a court case, you can be sure that Congress, the IRS, and the OMB would act immediately to close up that loophole.

Consider United States v. Hatch, 919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990) in which an argument based upon the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 most definitely did succeed. Imagine that!

I believe he (fortinbras) was referring to the PRA argument as raised by tax protesters.

Yes, he probably was, but it's called "truth in packaging."

You simply can't say, "NEVER succeeded," and not qualify the statement. You just did.

[Dr. Caligari]

Yeah, Government Employees

Where does the Constitution limit the power to tax to government employees? Please be specific.

[Nikki]

TS67, like many of his predecessors, came here with the thought athat he could reveal the TRUTH to us and demonstrate how we are all lackeys of the NWO, Communist, Socialist, powers behind everything to oppress WE THE PEOPLE.

Unfortunately, he -- like all those who came before him -- wilted in the glaring light of facts.

He has returned to Sooey, LoserHeads, or whatever inane gaggle of self-avowed freedom loving lunatics he came from. The only way to tell will be to see where he counts coup for venturing into the lion's den and emerging unscathed, if not victorious.

The unfortunate aspect is that he will continue with his soverignoramus actions without any benefit of reality.

[fortinbras]

I looked up the Hatch case. It was not a tax case, did not involve the IRS, did not involve a failure to submit tax papers.

It was a case of what the PRA was intended for; it spared a mining operation from penalty for failure to fill out various Dept of Interior forms that lacked an OMB number.

This is the problem with dealing with people with limited attention spans. I should have said in every instance, that the PRA has NEVER worked in an income tax case.

[ASITStands]

This is the problem with dealing with people with limited attention spans. I should have said in every instance, that the PRA has NEVER worked in an income tax case.

Shoulda, coulda and woulda never got the job done!

The fact is that's NOT what you said. Don't be 'miffed' because I pointed it out.

I'll show my 'limited attention span' by remembering that even AFTER Dan and Wes had shown Lawrence was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, you alleged the U.S. Attorney indicated he would be re-indicted, but apparently not within six months, as in 18 U.S.C. § 3288.

I'm not doubting he said that, but he was wrong. It's three and one half years later.

EDIT: Lest I be misunderstood, I want to be clear. I'm not offended and hope you're not.

[LPC]

Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, and many of the freedoms we hold dear. Do you honestly believe that in a revolution the same wouldn't happen today.

You don't need to go back to the Civil War, either in time or in positing a revolution. You only need to look at the Japanese internment cases of WWII (Korematsu and Hirabayashi) - which, of course, did not involve a civil war. We like to think that such disgraces couldn't happen today - but it was only sixty years ago, and I for one am not all that sure.

And then there's Jose Padilla, an America citizen, who was arrested on a material witness warrant in Chicago in 2002, and then the United States government transferred him to a military brig and declared that they could imprison him for the rest of his life, without any trial.

When his case was argued before the US Supreme Court, the government argued that the President had the power to declare someone to be an "enemy combatant" and imprison them without judicial review, and I was disappointed that none of the justices ever asked what would stop the President from declaring one of them to be an "enemy combatant" and imprisoning them without any possibility of any judicial review.

The assurance that "Well, of course, we wouldn't do that," would not have satisfied me if I were a justice of the Supreme Court and I were considering a ruling against a President who thought he had the power to imprison people without any need to prove to anyone that the prisoner had actually committed any crime.

But I'm just a Liberal Piece of S**t who thinks that the Constitution means what it says. Not what the Bush Administration thinks it says, and not what the tax nuts thinks it says, but what it actually says.

[truthseeker67]

"If the taxpayers of this country ever discovered that we operate on 98% bluff, the entire system will collapse."

Reported remark by an internal revenue service officer to Sen. Henry E. Bellmon (R. Okla.) on April 15, 1971. :ninja:

[truthseeker67]

The Tax Code represents the genius of legal fiction... The IRS has never really known why people pay the income tax... The IRS encourages voluntary compliance, through FEAR."

Jack Warren Wade Jr., former IRS officer in charge of the IRS Nationwide Revenue Officer Training Program, in his book ‘When You Owe The IRS’

Ahhhh....too bad

[truthseeker67]

TS67, like many of his predecessors, came here with the thought athat he could reveal the TRUTH to us and demonstrate how we are all lackeys of the NWO, Communist, Socialist, powers behind everything to oppress WE THE PEOPLE.

Unfortunately, he -- like all those who came before him -- wilted in the glaring light of facts.

He has returned to Sooey, LoserHeads, or whatever inane gaggle of self-avowed freedom loving lunatics he came from. The only way to tell will be to see where he counts coup for venturing into the lion's den and emerging unscathed, if not victorious.

The unfortunate aspect is that he will continue with his soverignoramus actions without any benefit of reality.

No Nikki.....I will never leave.....I will pound the TRUTH into you and you will see the real light. By the way, to fund federal highways....hmmmm.....I do believe there is a tax for that called the GAS TAX...... not the income tax. Keep calling me names for in the end you will reap what you sow.

[truthseeker67]

Senator Clark: "Of course, you withhold not only from taxpayers but nontaxpayers."

Mr. Hardy: "Yes."

...

Senator Danaher: "I have only one other thought on that point. In the event of withholding from the owner of stock and no taxes due ultimately, where does he get his refund?"

Mr. Friedman: "You're thinking of a corporation or an individual?"

Senator Danaher: "I am talking about an individual."

Mr. Friedman: "An individual will file an income tax return, and that income tax return will constitute an automatic claim for refund."



“Even if you do not otherwise have to file a return, you should file one to get a refund of any Federal income tax withheld.”

From the instructions for the 2002 Form 1040

[truthseeker67]

TS67, like many of his predecessors, came here with the thought athat he could reveal the TRUTH to us and demonstrate how we are all lackeys of the NWO, Communist, Socialist, powers behind everything to oppress WE THE PEOPLE.




Unfortunately, he -- like all those who came before him -- wilted in the glaring light of facts.

He has returned to Sooey, LoserHeads, or whatever inane gaggle of self-avowed freedom loving lunatics he came from. The only way to tell will be to see where he counts coup for venturing into the lion's den and emerging unscathed, if not victorious.

The unfortunate aspect is that he will continue with his soverignoramus actions without any benefit of reality.

No Nikki.....I will never leave.....I will pound the TRUTH into you and you will see the real light. By the way, to fund federal highways....hmmmm.....I do believe there is a tax for that called the GAS TAX...... not the income tax. Keep calling me names for in the end you will reap what you sow.

If your not part of the SOLUTION, you are part of the PROBLEM

[The Operative]

Typical, a bunch of quotes from sovereignoramous websites that either have no meaning or applicability in the real world or are taken completely out of context.

“Even if you do not otherwise have to file a return, you should file one to get a refund of any Federal income tax withheld.”

From the instructions for the 2002 Form 1040

That is actually true, but it doesn't support your erroneous ideas about the federal income tax laws. The statement applies to those who do not have to file returns because they did not have enough income to be statutorily required to file one. However, even if they are not required to file a return because they did not earn enough, they should file if any income taxes were withheld from their earnings in order to receive the refund that is due to them. For most individuals, if they earned more than the standard deduction, they must file a return and the amount of their taxable income will determine how much taxes they were responsible for. Anything above that amount that was withheld from their earnings would be refunded. If not enough was withheld, then they will owe when they file the tax return. BTW, both private sector and federal employees will generally have taxable income.

[LPC]

"If the taxpayers of this country ever discovered that we operate on 98% bluff, the entire system will collapse."

Reported remark by an internal revenue service officer to Sen. Henry E. Bellmon (R. Okla.) on April 15, 1971.

It is true that the system depends very much on what the IRS calls "voluntary compliance" (i.e., people filing accurate returns without someone standing over them with guns to their heads). If a significant percentage of the American people decided not to file returns, or to file false returns, the system would be in big trouble.

That's the situation in Italy, where tax evasion is socially acceptable and is sometimes described as a "national sport."

It's like a 55 mph speed limit, or Prohibition. If most people don't want to comply, the government is going to have trouble enforcing it.

Fortunately, most Americans have a sense of civic responsibility and work to comply with the tax laws and not evade them.

[Nikki]

TS67:

Ignoring your misinterpretation of both history and the laws as they stand today, how about if you come up up with a proposal for funding the government without an income tax.

You have three choices:

1 - come up with a non income tax source of revenue which will fully fund the operations of the government as it stands today and is less burdensome on you

2 - come up with a specific list of programs to be eliminated which will sufficiently reduce the expenditures to a level where they will not require the proceeds of an income tax (and "eliminate fraud waste, and abuse" isn't acceptable in that it's too generic)

3 - some combination of 1 and 2

If you either decline to address the issue or fail to come up with a workable solution, (which I guarantee will happen) you will be automatically entered in the troll-of-the-year contest for 2010.

Does anyone else hear crickets?

[Prof]

Actually, no, I do not hear crickets. The noise from the loose screws drowns out the crickets.