Nobody at losthorizons can answer a simple question

[Duke2Earl]

Here is the actual real deal. This is all a red herring. It is totally pointless. Whether or not there is an intergovernmental immunity doctrine or not, and if it exists how it applies is totally irrelevant to whether or not an individual owes income taxes. It is astonishingly easy to get lost in these trees. But the true point is that if one doesn't pay income taxes on their wages and get caught, they will find themselves in a world of hurt. You can argue this crap until everyone is blue in the face but if anybody goes into court arguing they don't owe income taxes because of their interpretation of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, I'll be forwarding their mail to the federal penitentiary.

As far as their questions and who asked what of who first... it's all bullcrap. It's like who can piss further in the snow. After it all goes by, it means exactly nothing.

And if you doubt me, give me a case of someone where a federal court said that an individual didn't owe taxes. I can give you literally hundreds that say that the tax is owed. Give just one that says it isn't. The only real question in these cases is whether the person claiming they don't owe taxes goes to jail or not. Sometimes they go to jail, sometimes they don't...but in EVERY case they end up owing the tax money. And in these cases people have argued every thing under the sun... that the tax is voluntary, that the tax is unconstitutional, that the forms are illegal, that maritime law applies, that the tax has to be apportioned, that various code sections exempt them from tax, that the moon is made of green cheese... etc. etc. etc. And and the end of the day every time... EVERY TIME, NO EXCEPTIONS, the person ends up owing the income tax.

So if you want and are having a good time... continue arguing about angels on the head of pins, and what are holdings and what is dicta, and who's on first. But at the end of the day, for sane people it matters not one whit.

[stija]

Here is the actual real deal. This is all a red herring. It is totally pointless. Whether or not there is an intergovernmental immunity doctrine or not, and if it exists how it applies is totally irrelevant to whether or not an individual owes income taxes. It is astonishingly easy to get lost in these trees. But the true point is that if one doesn't pay income taxes on their wages and get caught, they will find themselves in a world of hurt. You can argue this crap until everyone is blue in the face but if anybody goes into court arguing they don't owe income taxes because of their interpretation of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, I'll be forwarding their mail to the federal penitentiary.

As far as their questions and who asked what of who first... it's all bullcrap. It's like who can piss further in the snow. After it all goes by, it means exactly nothing.

And if you doubt me, give me a case of someone where a federal court said that an individual didn't owe taxes. I can give you literally hundreds that say that the tax is owed. Give just one that says it isn't. The only real question in these cases is whether the person claiming they don't owe taxes goes to jail or not. Sometimes they go to jail, sometimes they don't...but in EVERY case they end up owing the tax money. And in these cases people have argued every thing under the sun... that the tax is voluntary, that the tax is unconstitutional, that the forms are illegal, that maritime law applies, that the tax has to be apportioned, that various code sections exempt them from tax, that the moon is made of green cheese... etc. etc. etc. And and the end of the day every time... EVERY TIME, NO EXCEPTIONS, the person ends up owing the income tax.

So if you want and are having a good time... continue arguing about angels on the head of pins, and what are holdings and what is dicta, and who's on first. But at the end of the day, for sane people it matters not one whit.

Political gibberish.

Held: The contractors, as independent taxable entities, are not protected by the Constitution's guarantee of federal supremacy, and hence are subject to the state taxes in question. Pp. 455 U. S. 730-744.
(a) Federal immunity from state taxation cannot be conferred simply because the tax has an effect on the United States, or because the Federal Government shoulders the entire economic burden of the levy, or because the tax falls on the earnings of a contractor providing services to the Government. And where a use tax is involved, immunity cannot be conferred simply because the State levies the tax on the use of federal property in private hands, or, indeed, simply because the tax is paid with
Page 455 U. S. 721
Government funds. Tax immunity is appropriate only when the state levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities, at least insofar as the activity being taxed is concerned. A finding of constitutional tax immunity therefore requires something more than the invocation of traditional agency notions. Pp. 455 U. S. 730-738.

Title 26 imposes a direct tax on employers, which a state would be, as well as the employee.
Title 26 also imposes an unconstitutional burden on state in administering the tax laws, such as withholdings and reportings.
Thus IID applies, you're just too dumb to see it Duke.

To call something a red herring simply because you do not agree with it is ridiculous. You go ahead and show me one case where an atty gen of a state or another branch officer claimed that he was not taxable under Title 26 WHILE resident of his state and lost and I will concede you the 'red herring.'

Is that what you guys do when you get stuck with something that doesn't make sense to you? Just label it and ignore it? No wonder.... lazy

[Famspear]

....But, and maybe i did not pose the question correctly, when does the IID extend to the office/officer of the states and not just the state agencies or instrumentalities thereof? The question is posed because I argued that when an essential governmental state function is performed, or when the burden of taxation falls directly on the agency as well as the officer, the IID applies and both are immune. And this is reciprocal.

See Duke2Earl's post.

With respect to the imposition of federal income tax, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine (IID) does not extend to the officer of a state. Assuming for the sake of argument that an essential government state function is performed, or assuming that the burden of the federal income tax falls directly on the agency as well as the officer, the IID does not apply; the officer is not "immune" from the liability for federal income tax.

If the law were the opposite -- if the officer were immune from federal income tax as you described -- there would be a court ruling to that effect. There is none.

[stija]

If the law were the opposite -- if the officer were immune from federal income tax as you described -- there would be a court ruling to that effect. There is none.

So if there is no court ruling about something it does not exist?

Pete can play that game too. Where is the court ruling that clearly says that Americans are required to file 1040 returns? Since there is none......oh man i can't even say it without laughing my ass off.

You can't be serious?

[Dr. Caligari]

Much less than it used to - generally when the taxation discriminates against one sovereign, as I wrote above. Among the instances:

(1) When a state taxes recipients of its own payments at a lesser rate than it taxes recipients of federal payments. Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989).

(2) When a state taxes military retirement benefits, but exempts the retirement benefits of its own employees. Barker v. Kansas, 503 U.S. 594 (1992).

(3) And, of course, when a state attempts to tax the United States itself or "an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities". United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720 (1982).

Now is there a point to this?

Yes, there is a point.

(1) and (2) deal with discrimination, no one is claiming discrimination so lets take them out of view ok? (3) deals with taxation of state and federal agencies. We agreed, and LPC proved that federal corporations cannot be taxed by states, and viceversa.

Where did you get the "vice versa" part from? Not from LPC's quote, certainly.

But, and maybe i did not pose the question correctly, when does the IID extend to the office/officer of the states and not just the state agencies or instrumentalities thereof?

Never.

[Cpt Banjo]

I argued that when an essential governmental state function is performed, or when the burden of taxation falls directly on the agency as well as the officer, the IID applies and both are immune.

Your argument fails. For example, in Bessemer City Bd. of Educ. v. United States, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (N.D. Alabama 2002), a city board of education was assessed penalties and interest for failing to file, pay, and deposit the employer's share of federal employment taxes. Among other arguments, the board argued that the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine ("ITID") precluded the IRS from assessing the penalty and interest. The court noted that it was curious that the board had never complained about paying the underlying employment taxes, but it didn't base its opinion on that fact. Instead, it looked at the current status of the ITID:

The USA's initial brief nicely summarizes the complicated Supreme Court history of the ever-narrowing intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, (doc. 3 at 7-12), with its turning point in the plurality opinion in New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572, 66 S. Ct. 310, 90 L. Ed. 326, 1946-1 C.B. 285 (1946). While the court will not review that history here, the court does note that, upon a review of the Supreme Court cases cited by both parties, none of these cases has held, as the USA contends, that a tax against a state can only be invalidated if it both 1) discriminated against the state, and 2) was directly levied upon a state or its instrumentalities. (Doc. 3 at 13.) Indeed, the case to which the USA cites for the most direct support of this logical conjunction actually uses a logical disjunction, that is, the word "or": "After Graves, therefore, intergovernmental tax immunity barred only those taxes that were imposed directly on one sovereign by the other or that discriminated against a sovereign or those with whom it dealt." Davis v. Michigan Dep't of Safety, 489 U.S. 803, 811, 109 S. Ct. 1500, 103 L. Ed. 2d 891 (1989) (emphasis added). In addition, the other case to which the USA cites for the conjunction never clearly articulates the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine with respect to federal taxation of state entities, but instead observes only that some nondiscriminatory federal taxes could be collected directly from a state even though a parallel state tax could not be collected directly from the federal government. See South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523, 108 S. Ct. 1355, 99 L. Ed. 2d 592 (1988). Declining to decide whether a federal tax that was both nondiscriminatory and levied directly on a state government was subject to intergovernmental tax immunity, the Supreme Court in South Carolina remarked in a footnote: "For our purposes, the important principle New York reaffirms is that the issue whether a nondiscriminatory federal tax might nonetheless violate state tax immunity does not even arise unless the Federal Government seeks to collect the tax directly from a state." See id. at 523 n.14.

Whether the intergovernmental immunity doctrine in its present form contains a conjunction or a disjunction, or whether it can be phrased in some other way that precludes its application to the Bessemer BOE, is of critical importance to the USA's ability to prevail on its motion to dismiss, since the USA has admitted that the penalties and interest in this case are, in fact, levied directly upon the Bessemer BOE, (doc. 3 at 13), and therefore on an agency of the state of Alabama. Consequently, if intergovernmental tax immunity applies solely as long as either the tax is directly levied on a state or if the tax is discriminatory, as Davis seems to suggest, then the Bessemer BOE would be, by the USA's own admission, immune from the penalties and interest assessed. Fortunately for the USA, yet another Supreme Court case, one that was even characterized by the Bessemer BOE as possessing an "extensive explanation of the doctrine of 'Intergovernmental Tax Immunity" (doc. 1, Ex. 1, "Memorandum," at 2) (no close quotation in original), has interpreted New York in a manner that produces a slightly different phrasing for the modern intergovernmental immunity doctrine, one that does not use either a conjunction or disjunction:

"[T]he majority [in New York] reasoned that a nondiscriminatory tax may be applied to a state business activity where, as was the case there, the recognition of immunity would 'accomplish a withdrawal from the taxing power of the nation a subject of taxation of a nature which has been traditionally within that power from the beginning. Its exercise . . . by a nondiscriminatory tax, does not curtail the business of the state government more than it does the like business of the citizen."

Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444, 457, 98 S. Ct. 1153, 55 L. Ed. 2d 403 (1978). The Court in Massachusetts therefore concluded that any nondiscriminatory tax on a state business activity for which immunity would frustrate a traditional subject of federal taxation should not be precluded by the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. Reviewing other of its previous precedents, the Court also acknowledged that: "an economic burden on traditional state functions without more is not a sufficient basis for sustaining a claim of immunity." See id. at 461.

Based on Massachusetts, a case which appears to provide the court with the clearest and most extensive understanding of the Supreme Court's post-New York position on the application of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine as it relates to federal taxation of a state agency, the court finds that even if the penalties and interest at issue are taxes levied directly on a state instrumentality, those penalties and interest are obviously non-discriminatory because they are applied to any entity, public or private, that fails to file a tax return and that fails to pay its taxes, as well as to any "person" who fails to make a deposit of taxes. Furthermore, immunity would most certainly frustrate one of the traditional subjects of federal taxation, namely, the collection of income taxes, and, post-World War II, of social security and Medicare taxes; in fact, the court can think of no more traditional form of federal taxation upon employers. To be sure, any payment by the Bessemer BOE to the federal government would be a cost to the state and an economic burden that might well affect the traditional state function of education, but as the Supreme Court noted in Massachusetts, that economic burden alone "is not a sufficient basis for sustaining a claim of immunity." Because of the nondiscriminatory nature of the penalties and interest and their relationship to such traditional federal taxes, the court concludes that the Bessemer BOE is not immune from the penalties and interest assessed on it from its nonpayment of 941 taxes, and is therefore not entitled to a refund of those monies, leaving no claim upon which relief can be granted in its Complaint against the USA. Consequently, the USA's motion to dismiss is due to be granted. 576 Fed. Supp. 2d at 1254-1256 (footnote omitted and emphasis added)

[Famspear]

If the law were the opposite -- if the officer were immune from federal income tax as you described -- there would be a court ruling to that effect. There is none.

So if there is no court ruling about something it does not exist?

Pete can play that game to. Where is the court ruling that clearly says that Americans are required to file 1040 returns?

You can't be serious?

There are plenty of court rulings that clearly say that Americans are required to file federal income tax returns. I'll be glad to supply some of them to you later. Courts don't have to use the phrase "1040 return" (if that's what you're driving at; one of Hendrickson's problems is his perseverant insistence that the courts have to say things in just a certain way, and I don't know whether you have that problem or not).

In this case, yes: If there is no court ruling that says that the intergovernmental immunity doctrine applies in the way you claim it does, then there is no such rule of law that applies it in that way.

Here's why.

The scope of the federal income tax under section 61 is pretty much limited only by the statutory provisions that exclude certain items of income from "gross income" as otherwise provided in section 61. The intergovernmental immunity doctrine (IID) is not embodied in one of those statutory provisions.

Therefore, the only way that the IID could apply in the way you describe would be in a situation where a court supplied what legal scholars call "judicial gloss." Under the rules of law, that could happen only in an actual federal court decision involving an interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code where a court ruled that the IID applies in the way you describe. Because there is no such court decision, you are left with nothing.

[Duke2Earl]

If the law were the opposite -- if the officer were immune from federal income tax as you described -- there would be a court ruling to that effect. There is none.

So if there is no court ruling about something it does not exist?

Pete can play that game too. Where is the court ruling that clearly says that Americans are required to file 1040 returns? Since there is none......oh man i can't even say it without laughing my ass off.

You can't be serious?

And yet... and yet... Pete's been a guest at Club Fed, twice I believe. I am sure he is going to die believing he is right and everyone else is wrong. You see sane people try to stay out of jail and do odd things like support their families, go to work every day, take vacations, and don't spend their lives tilting at windmills and fighting battles they always lose. But I suspect you wouldn't know anything about what sane people do.

[wserra]

But, and maybe i did not pose the question correctly,

The question was fine, and I answered it. You just don't like the answer. You want to roll the clock back to the time of Collector v. Day. Well, the law has moved on, leaving you behind.

when does the IID extend to the office/officer of the states and not just the state agencies or instrumentalities thereof?

It doesn't. If you wish to claim otherwise, please cite authority. Your arguments, or perceptions, or inferences, aren't authority. "Cite authority" means find a modern case that holds that intergovernmental tax immunity prevents the federal government from taxing a state official. I responded to your question, please respond to mine.

The question is posed because I argued

Yes, you did.

[stija]

Just when i was writing a post to concede no IID in order to move on, i get this:

The USA's initial brief nicely summarizes the complicated Supreme Court history of the ever-narrowing intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, (doc. 3 at 7-12), with its turning point in the plurality opinion in New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572, 66 S. Ct. 310, 90 L. Ed. 326, 1946-1 C.B. 285 (1946). While the court will not review that history here, the court does note that, upon a review of the Supreme Court cases cited by both parties, none of these cases has held, as the USA contends, that a tax against a state can only be invalidated if it both 1) discriminated against the state, and 2) was directly levied upon a state or its instrumentalities. (Doc. 3 at 13.) Indeed, the case to which the USA cites for the most direct support of this logical conjunction actually uses a logical disjunction, that is, the word "or": "After Graves, therefore, intergovernmental tax immunity barred only those taxes that were imposed directly on one sovereign by the other or that discriminated against a sovereign or those with whom it dealt." Davis v. Michigan Dep't of Safety, 489 U.S. 803, 811, 109 S. Ct. 1500, 103 L. Ed. 2d 891 (1989) (emphasis added). In addition, the other case to which the USA cites for the conjunction never clearly articulates the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine with respect to federal taxation of state entities, but instead observes only that some nondiscriminatory federal taxes could be collected directly from a state even though a parallel state tax could not be collected directly from the federal government. See South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523, 108 S. Ct. 1355, 99 L. Ed. 2d 592 (1988). Declining to decide whether a federal tax that was both nondiscriminatory and levied directly on a state government was subject to intergovernmental tax immunity, the Supreme Court in South Carolina remarked in a footnote: "For our purposes, the important principle New York reaffirms is that the issue whether a nondiscriminatory federal tax might nonetheless violate state tax immunity does not even arise unless the Federal Government seeks to collect the tax directly from a state." See id. at 523 n.14.

Whether the intergovernmental immunity doctrine in its present form contains a conjunction or a disjunction, or whether it can be phrased in some other way that precludes its application to the Bessemer BOE, is of critical importance to the USA's ability to prevail on its motion to dismiss, since the USA has admitted that the penalties and interest in this case are, in fact, levied directly upon the Bessemer BOE, (doc. 3 at 13), and therefore on an agency of the state of Alabama. Consequently, if intergovernmental tax immunity applies solely as long as either the tax is directly levied on a state or if the tax is discriminatory, as Davis seems to suggest, then the Bessemer BOE would be, by the USA's own admission, immune from the penalties and interest assessed. Fortunately for the USA, yet another Supreme Court case, one that was even characterized by the Bessemer BOE as possessing an "extensive explanation of the doctrine of 'Intergovernmental Tax Immunity" (doc. 1, Ex. 1, "Memorandum," at 2) (no close quotation in original), has interpreted New York in a manner that produces a slightly different phrasing for the modern intergovernmental immunity doctrine, one that does not use either a conjunction or disjunction:

"[T]he majority [in New York] reasoned that a nondiscriminatory tax may be applied to a state business activity where, as was the case there, the recognition of immunity would 'accomplish a withdrawal from the taxing power of the nation a subject of taxation of a nature which has been traditionally within that power from the beginning. Its exercise . . . by a nondiscriminatory tax, does not curtail the business of the state government more than it does the like business of the citizen."

They are referring to a business enterprise. Can private individuals set up a private school? Yes. That is the test SCOTUS uses to determine a legitimate gov't power v. business enterprise. Business enterprises ARE the proper SUBJECT of income taxation - legitimate gov't functions are not. That is MY ARGUMENT.

Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444, 457, 98 S. Ct. 1153, 55 L. Ed. 2d 403 (1978). The Court in Massachusetts therefore concluded that any nondiscriminatory tax on a state business activity for which immunity would frustrate a traditional subject of federal taxation should not be precluded by the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. Reviewing other of its previous precedents, the Court also acknowledged that: "an economic burden on traditional state functions without more is not a sufficient basis for sustaining a claim of immunity." See id. at 461.

Based on Massachusetts, a case which appears to provide the court with the clearest and most extensive understanding of the Supreme Court's post-New York position on the application of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine as it relates to federal taxation of a state agency, the court finds that even if the penalties and interest at issue are taxes levied directly on a state instrumentality, those penalties and interest are obviously non-discriminatory because they are applied to any entity, public or private, that fails to file a tax return and that fails to pay its taxes, as well as to any "person" who fails to make a deposit of taxes. Furthermore, immunity would most certainly frustrate one of the traditional subjects of federal taxation, namely, the collection of income taxes, and, post-World War II, of social security and Medicare taxes; in fact, the court can think of no more traditional form of federal taxation upon employers. To be sure, any payment by the Bessemer BOE to the federal government would be a cost to the state and an economic burden that might well affect the traditional state function of education, but as the Supreme Court noted in Massachusetts, that economic burden alone "is not a sufficient basis for sustaining a claim of immunity." Because of the nondiscriminatory nature of the penalties and interest and their relationship to such traditional federal taxes, the court concludes that the Bessemer BOE is not immune from the penalties and interest assessed on it from its nonpayment of 941 taxes, and is therefore not entitled to a refund of those monies, leaving no claim upon which relief can be granted in its Complaint against the USA. Consequently, the USA's motion to dismiss is due to be granted. 576 Fed. Supp. 2d at 1254-1256 (footnote omitted and emphasis added)

You proved what was already proven in New York (bottling of water) and similar cases dealing with state business enterprises. I already conceded that point my friend. Move one.

There are three branches of gov't: exec, leg, judicial. A private citizen cannot just open up a business enterprise of the same character. You are mixing apples and oranges. You may wanna try again.

Thanks for trying at least banjo instead of calling me names.

[stija]

@wserra,

wserra said:

(a) Federal immunity from state taxation cannot be conferred simply because the tax has an effect on the United States, or because the Federal Government shoulders the entire economic burden of the levy, or because the tax falls on the earnings of a contractor providing services to the Government. And where a use tax is involved, immunity cannot be conferred simply because the State levies the tax on the use of federal property in private hands, or, indeed, simply because the tax is paid with
Page 455 U. S. 721
Government funds. Tax immunity is appropriate only when the state levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities, at least insofar as the activity being taxed is concerned. A finding of constitutional tax immunity therefore requires something more than the invocation of traditional agency notions. Pp. 455 U. S. 730-738.

I said:
Exactly what i argue. Title 26 would impose a levy directly on employers (state agencies) AND also pose an unconstitutional burden on the functions of the agency in complying with administering and reporting requirements as well.

What about that post makes you think i disagreed with what you answered?

What about a gov't agency of the three branches v. a state business enterprise confuses you guys? Gov't itself v. state business enterprise that any man of common right can participate in?

Don't just blindly try to discredit me EVEN when i agree with you. Read, think, then write. Pathetic.

So far all the SCOTUS case law dealt either with federal or state enterprises FOR PROFIT. Please read again before you post and make me read it and discredit it.

[Famspear]

....Thanks for trying at least banjo instead of calling me names.

I take it that you don't like being called names.

The lesson you should take from that is: Don't call other people names. I don't know about your interactions with others in this thread, but in your interaction with me you clearly initiated the name-calling -- referring to me as a "fool." I responded by referring to you as "bozo." See how that works?

Other people can be just as nice -- or rude -- as you can be. Your bluster and rhetoric is not impressive; we see your kind of garbage all the time. You will never win an argument here by trying to lecture others on what the law is or by name calling.

When it comes to the law of federal income taxation, none of the regulars in this thread are "fools," stija. You would do better to come here with the attitude of trying to learn, not to lecture. You have no credibility or credentials to lecture others about federal tax law or any kind of law. By contrast, many of the regulars here do have the credibility -- and credentials -- to lecture you on the law.

I appreciate the fact that you are apparently conceding an issue; that shows some character.

[Cpt Banjo]

You proved what was already proven in New York (bottling of water) and similar cases dealing with state business enterprises. I already conceded that point my friend. Move one.

Holy cow, didn't you even notice that the board of education was performing a traditional governmental function and not a business? In addition, the Massachusetts case involved a tax on aircraft, and the State was complaining about the tax being applied to a helicopter used solely in police functions (again, not a business). It lost.

You are the one who should try again.

[stija]

You proved what was already proven in New York (bottling of water) and similar cases dealing with state business enterprises. I already conceded that point my friend. Move one.

Holy cow, didn't you even notice that the board of education was performing a traditional governmental function and not a business? In addition, the Massachusetts case involved a tax on aircraft, and the State was complaining about the tax being applied to a helicopter used solely in police functions (again, not a business). It lost.

You are the one who should try again.

Bring it up with the SCOTUS if you disagree.

Essential gov't functions are limited to carrying out the legitimate affairs of its executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Any moron with some money can open up a private school and run such enterprise, which is the proper subject of taxation, as the court above explains.

Read the Massachussetts case again friend. Pay special attention to the first holding, or did you skip it because it does not agree with your views:

Held: The registration tax does not violate the implied immunity of a state government from federal taxation. Pp 435 U. S. 453-470
(a) A State enjoys no constitutional immunity from a nondiscriminatory federal revenue measure which operates only to ensure that each member of a class of special beneficiaries of a federal program pays a reasonable approximation of its fair share of the cost of the program to the Federal Government. Pp. 435 U. S. 454-463.

As i claimed earlier, and it seems i spoke the truth, you guys are VERY GOOD at quoting case law without understanding what it holds. Mass wanted its cake and to eat it too. Uh-huh said Supremes rightly!

There is a lot more you do not know my friend. But you have time. What else you got capt?

[stija]

In the interest of the truth and more important matters, since not everyone works for state branches, i am willing to concede that there is no IID, never was never existed, whatever you want. It is irrelevant.

Let's move on. Let's talk about a more practical business model.

I charter in Delaware, I open up a small business catering to the elderly in Alabama. My business is wholly local in nature within Alabama. I have employees and i have contractors, as well as corporate officers. A common business platform.

What is the proper civil status under Title 26 of my Delaware corp while doing business locally within Alabama for federal taxation purposes?

I think it is a straight forward and simple question. Anyone?

[wserra]

In the interest of the truth and more important matters, since not everyone works for state branches, i am willing to concede that there is no IID, never was never existed, whatever you want. It is irrelevant.

So there was no point after all.

Go jerk off in the corner. Adults have better things to do.

[stija]

Go jerk off in the corner. Adults have better things to do.

They also admit when they are wrong. Instead i have to agree to a falsity to keep the ball rolling.

[stija]

I charter in Delaware, I open up a small business catering to the elderly in Alabama. My business is wholly local in nature within Alabama. I have employees and i have contractors, as well as corporate officers. A common business platform.

What is the proper civil status under Title 26 of my Delaware corp while doing business locally within Alabama for federal taxation purposes?

I think it is a straight forward and simple question. Anyone?

Bueller?

[stija]

To recap succinctly what we discovered so far:

a) Intergovernmental Immunity Doctrine ('IID') exists, as agreed by LPC, myself and confirmed by SCOTUS. wserra concurred. (see Graves v New York, South Carolina v United States, New York v United States, and other cases quoted throughout this thread)

b) IID implied immunity rule from Collector v. Day is overruled and replaced with a two part rule (see Graves v New York) which extends to BOTH the agency and officer thereof in exercise of ESSENTIAL (three branches) gov't functions ONLY, if involving:
i) direct taxation of state/feds (each other - reciprocal see (d) below), OR
ii) unwarranted and unconstitutional burden on the agency

c) Title 26 Subtitle C would purport to impose BOTH:
i) a direct tax on the agency - FICA, FUCA, and other payments,
ii) unwarranted and unconstitutional burden on state agencies

d) IID is reciprocal and same rules apply, except insofar Congress was granted an EXPLICIT power of taxation on a subject in which case Congress is supreme in that respect.

e) the fundamental principle behind this is that one sovereign may not tax another just for exercising its INHERENT rights to exist and function - in the case of governments, this is the discharge of duties through one of the three branches: Judicial, Legislative, or Executive.

f) in regards to business enterprises involving state agencies or instrumentalities thereof, the IID does NOT apply IF Congress has the right of taxation over the specific subject

Did i miss anything guys?

[Gregg]

I think you've confused Dan ("LPC") and me. That's OK. I'm glad to be confused with Dan, and you're apparently glad to be, well, confused.

Now that is funny right there.

But on a serious note, a few things....

You came here to lecture the collective "us" on subjects that the people you are lecturing to are real life experts and you learned about by reading stuff on the internet. And you're just plain rude about it.
Now, I am not an attorney so I cannot get into the finer points of inter-government immunities and stuff, sounds like a set of rules for when a state political body is also an employer, if I needed an opinion on it to save a life, and this is the truth, I'd first ask at least one of the people you're arguing with and this in spite o the fact that they are all (except LPC part of the year) are in different states than me and I have a pretty good lawyer of my own.

That being said, if you came to a thread and started trying to "internet truth" argue with me on my subject of expertise (economics and building cars, a strange combination I'd admit, but there you are) I'd be quite tempted to let you know that while I'll allow that almost anyone can make you see something you've never realized before, for the most part, Harvard College, Xavier, LSE and the University of Michigan have taught me quite a bit and for you to convince me I got it wrong you're gonna need to be real persuasive.

And you're not. You're not even very original, just another in a long string of people who wrongly think that because they go get their courage up about their misguided beliefs in a room fool of conspiracy theory nutbags that they actually KNOW anything. If you start with the thesis of "most people who have jobs don't really have to pay income tax" you're wrong, and it doesn't matter how many points of minutia you can toss around out of context, out of your level of understanding or just out there.... most people who earn money have to pay income tax, there is no vast conspiracy to trick people into paying it who really don't have to and no, Sparky, you're not smarter than everyone else.

Now, after almost 60 posts in about your first 24 hours, I think I speak for many more here in saying that we hear ya, your work here is done, and you can return to GLP plot the revolution. I know I'll be among the first against the wall and all that, but it's a chance I'm willing to take.

Bu'bye!