Happy father's day

[Harvester]

How do you know that I'm white, Moron?

I don't. My world is color blind. All colors are fair game.

Good job Gwegg, you pwetty smaht for quatloser. But I am not lying; there are no inconsistencies with my story. I read CtC in 2008, filed knowledgeably and received full refund for TY2008. Have not filed since. Prior to April 15, 2009, I requested & received a return of all IRA contributions made for TY2008. My understanding is you can do that penalty and tax-free; it's like saying "oops my bad, I don't want to be a 'taxpayer' after all." The following year I requested & recvd full distribution of the remainder of the account. That amount was below the statutory exemption amount. No 'employer' was involved. I don't know why y'all find this so hard to believe. Certainly you're not all taken in by the masters of deception posting here . . . are you ?

[Pottapaug1938]

How do you know that I'm white, Moron?

I don't. My world is color blind. All colors are fair game.

Then why did you say what you did, Moron?

[Pottapaug1938]

[quote="Harvester"]

Here's the law (the real law, not your CtC fantasy):

Contributions Returned Before Due Date of Return

If you made IRA contributions in 2009, you can withdraw them tax free by the due date of your return. If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply.

You did not take a deduction for the contribution.

You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount.

"Prior to April 15, 2009, I requested & received a return of all IRA contributions made for TY2008. My understanding is you can do that penalty and tax-free...."

Penalty-free, yes. Tax-free, not necessarily.

"The following year I requested & received a full distribution of the remainder of the account. That amount was below the statutory exemption amount."

Perhaps; but it still is a part of your taxable income, like it or not.

"Certainly you're not all taken in by the masters of deception posting here . . . are you ?"

Of course not. If you, or Van Pelt, or anyone of your ilk says it, I presume that it isn't true unless shown otherwise -- and you've proved yourself to be too much of a coward to do that.

[Gregg]

Time-outs: There have been a few, very few, instances in the past where the forum administrators have seen fit to lock someone's account from any new posts for a few weeks.

Harvester has crossed the line. Perhaps he gets to ride this once, but ONE more should warrant some consequence. He's already on moderated status, so the next step is a time out.

Can we make him do his time under water?

[Arthur Rubin]

You can text underwater?

(Paraphrasing a TMobile commercial, "You can do that with mittens on?")

[The Observer]

Can we make him do his time under water

Don't we have enough problems with the oil spill in the Gulf without adding further pollution to the Earth's water?

[Pottapaug1938]

Can we make him do his time under water

Don't we have enough problems with the oil spill in the Gulf without adding further pollution to the Earth's water?

I can think of a disused coal mine near Scranton, PA that would fit the bill.

[Paul]

So our current king of Frickintardistan filed a calendar 2008 return and got a refund, and thinks he's home free because the IRS hasn't seized his bank accounts yet? Sounds like the old joke about the man falling off a skyscraper, saying, "So far, so good" as he passed each floor.

[Famspear]

So our current king of Frickintardistan filed a calendar 2008 return and got a refund, and thinks he's home free because the IRS hasn't seized his bank accounts yet? Sounds like the old joke about the man falling off a skyscraper, saying, "So far, so good" as he passed each floor.

Exactly. Harvester (or Nationwide at losthorizons) is not exactly the brightest bulb on the tree. Check out these comments from him, posting as "johnthetaxist" at another web site (last summer, I believe). Regarding what were then the pending criminal charges against Hendrickson, Harvester wrote:

Famspear, I think there's a slim chance one of the 10 counts will stick, but I see no law Hendrickson has violated.

Of course, Hendrickson was easily convicted on all ten counts in October 2009. The jury easily found the law Hendrickson violated. As I recall, after Hendrickson was found guilty, Harvester then predicted (in so many words) that Hendrickson would not be sentenced. I'm not sure, but I think Harvester was (until recently) implying that Hendrickson would not go to prison. However, I think Harvey doesn't believe that now.

More from Harvester/johnthetaxist (last summer):

It's significant that the IRS/DOJ has tried for SIX (6) years now to silence Hendrickson and put him away - and failed - he still has his property and his freedom. If he was truly filing based on a scheme or "scam" wouldn't the case be a fairly routine open-and-shut win for the govt?

Duuhhhh...... This is a guy who obviously has no concept of how the legal system works, or how long these things take. Those lines were actually written while Hendrickson was facing his criminal trial -- and Harvey knew that.

Now, check out this classic from Harvester:

Famspear, with all due respect, I'm open to the possibility it's a scam [referring to Hendrickson's Cracking the Code scam], but you've said little to persuade me; right now the greater possibility is ... the IRS has scammed us all. Your declaration that its irrelevant whether the income tax is a direct or indirect tax is really not helping your cause. It's demonstrative of your ignorance of primary law, the US Constitution, upon which the statutes are founded on and must not contradict.

Duh....

Of course, it's not "my case." And I wasn't trying to "persuade" Harvey; I was laying down the law -- literally. And "my" declaration -- that whether the income tax is direct or indirect is irrelevant to the issue of apportionment -- was not somehow hurting my "case" -- under the Constitution, the statutes, etc., that's the rule. It's not "theory" that I somehow came up with on my own. Look at what the courts have said:

Thus, since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment it is immaterial, with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or an indirect tax.

---from Sortillon v. Commissioner, 38 T.C.M. (CCH) 1097, T.C. Memo 1979-281, CCH Dec. 36,194(M), Docket No. 2108-79 (July 26, 1979).

Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax.

---from Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, CCH Dec. 41,031 (1984).

Harvester also wrote:

Likewise, you should entertain that tiniest of possibilities that Hendrickson is right. What if I told you there's a long range plan (well advanced, I might add) to destroy the US as a free and independent republic. What if that plan involved the Federal Reserve and the IRS? Do you think our government is insusceptible to corruption? That certain tyrants could not gradually "take-over" an agency with accomplices and billions of paper dollars?

I will not stand idle while tyrants hand my money to elites, usurp the rule of law, and takeover the country my fathers fought & died for. I will risk "final notice of intent to levy" seizures, yes even jail, just let it not be said that I did nothing.

And then Harvester/johnthetaxist slides into one of his "WE THE PEOPLE will take over the country some day" wackadoosterisms:

......consider that future when the dollar collapses and WE THE PEOPLE are running wild in the streets (some well-armed, no doubt). Consider well your words & on whose side you will stand. For we are in a great contest, the BANKERS/ELITES/IRS v. WeThePeople/CONSTITUTION and may God have mercy on those who choose wrong.

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages ... on?page=65

(bolding added).

[Harvester]

Contributions Returned Before Due Date of Return

If you made IRA contributions in 2009, you can withdraw them tax free by the due date of your return. ..

Yes, thanks for that Pottapaug. We're in agreement here. That current year IRA contribs can be taken out tax-free until return due-date. And yes, that other distributions will carry the presumption of 'income' and will generally be reported on Form 1099R and may not necessarily be 'tax-free.' Although in my case they were because the reported 'income' was below the statutory exemption amount.

Famspire, you definitely know how to make me proud. Is there anything worse than a true believer? Spreading 'the word' via reposting; really, I owe you one. Do you honestly believe you HAVE NOT been scammed by the de facto government? Yes, I know you're scared to death of “we the people”. But it's not too late for you, we can avoid that ugly "wild in the streets" scenario. Lord knows I don't want it. This is a peaceful plan active behind the scenes. But of course no guarantees once ThePeople become aware in the Great Awakening of all the rampant deception, the looting, that's taken place for so, so many years. Yes, you'll look back and say I was one of the saner more sedate patriots. STAND TALL WARRIORS!

http://www.panamalaw.org/psychological_ ... f_rap.html

[LOBO]

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf

On page 9:

Chart C—Other Situations When You Must File

You must file a return if any of the four conditions below apply for 2009.
1. You owe any special taxes, including any of the following.
a. Alternative minimum tax.
b. Additional tax on a qualified plan, including an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), or other tax-favored account. But if you are
filing a return only because you owe this tax, you can file Form 5329 by itself.
c. Household employment taxes. But if you are filing a return only because you owe this tax, you can file Schedule H by itself.
d. Social security and Medicare tax on tips you did not report to your employer or on wages you received from an employer who did not
withhold these taxes.
e. Write-in taxes, including uncollected social security and Medicare or RRTA tax on tips you reported to your employer or on
group-term life insurance and additional taxes on health savings accounts. See the instructions for line 60 on page 46.
f. Recapture taxes. See the instructions for line 44, that begin on page 37, and line 60, on page 46.
2. You received any advance earned income credit (EIC) payments from your employer. These payments are shown in
Form W-2, box 9.
3. You had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400.
4. You had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social
security and Medicare taxes.

[Harvester]

LOBOhead, If you're attempting to prove that I am required to file a return simply by receiving an IRA distribution, you will need more proof than:

b. Additional tax on a qualified plan, including an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), or other tax-favored account.

I'm well aware these distributions are presumed 'wages' and therefore 'income' but once again, the amount was below the statutory exemption.

This may be hard for you, but, you can admit defeat.

[LOBO]

LOBOhead, If you're attempting to prove that I am required to file a return simply by receiving an IRA distribution, you will need more proof than:

b. Additional tax on a qualified plan, including an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), or other tax-favored account.

I'm well aware these distributions are presumed 'wages' and therefore 'income' but once again, the amount was below the statutory exemption.

This may be hard for you, but, you can admit defeat.

IRA distributions are presumed to be wages? What's next? Gambling winnings are wages? Royalties are wages? You can call them what you want. Calling something a wage doesn't magically make it taxable, just like calling a wage by another synonym doesn't magically make it nontaxable. But this is a lesson you and the other Lostheads have trouble figuring out.

I did indeed show that you would be required to file despite the withdrawl being below the normal exemption amount, although you are too dumb to realize this. Then again, I am speaking to a moron who gets his tax advise from someone who's going to prison (and abandoning his family in the process) for following the same advise.

[Harvester]

IRA distributions are presumed to be wages? What's next? Gambling winnings are wages? Royalties are wages? You can call them what you want. Calling something a wage doesn't magically make it taxable, just like calling a wage by another synonym doesn't magically make it nontaxable.

Oh I'm not calling them wages, Congress is. I might direct you to § 3405. Special rules for pensions, annuities, and certain other deferred income
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/us ... -000-.html

(f) Withholding to be treated as wage withholding under section 3402 for other purposes
For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter)—
(1) any designated distribution (whether or not an election under this section applies to such distribution) shall be treated as if it were wages paid by an employer to an employee with respect to which there has been withholding under section 3402, ..

So, it doesn't matter what is being distributed, or what you or I call them, Congress declares them to be "wages" (custom defined term) and hence a type of statutory income.

Also of note, the same page says:

(b) Nonperiodic distribution
(1) Withholding
The payor of any nonperiodic distribution (as defined in subsection (e)(3)) shall withhold from such distribution an amount equal to 10 percent of such distribution.
(2) Election of no withholding
(A) In general
An individual may elect not to have paragraph (1) apply with respect to any nonperiodic distribution.

Hmm, so I can elect NOT to have 10 % withheld. And,

(d) Liability for withholding
(1) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the payor of a designated distribution (as defined in subsection (e)(1)) shall withhold, and be liable for, payment of the tax required to be withheld under this section.

Ooo, this is not looking good for you. I'm not liable for payment of the tax, the payor is!

Thanks for playing. Happy 4th of July!

[Pottapaug1938]

No matter who actually pays the tax to the IRS, the tax LIABILITY still belongs to the individual. In the past, I've had employers who paid no tax on my behalf, so I had to make estimated tax payments on my own. If I went to Foxwoods (a way to fleece suckers of their disposable cash, which is why I never go to it or any other casino) and won $100,000 (i should be so lucky), I would be responsible for disclosing that income on my tax return and paying estimated taxes on it.

[Cathulhu]

Harv, you idiot. It says right there in the same paragraph you're citing that if you (2) elect not to have the tax withheld, the payer is not responsible.

Except as provided in paragraph (2), the payor of a designated distribution (as defined in subsection (e)(1)) shall withhold, and be liable for, payment of the tax required to be withheld under this section.

Well, figures since your favorite tax adviser just started his sentence: a conviction you said would never happen, and what was that one about Pete not spending a single day in prison.

Happy 4th of July to those of us who are free--of delusion, disloyalty, lying, and just plain treason. Your kids are in public school, you drive public roads, enjoy the protection of police when you call them, or 911 responders--but when it's time for responsible people to pay the bill, you do the sand-crawl, wormier. Pity there's no emoticon for you crawling on your belly.

[LPC]

This thread was off topic to begin with, and now that the 4th of July has come and gone, I'm locking it down.