Pablo Unhappo

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Joey Smith
Infidel Enslaver
Posts: 895
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:57 pm

Pablo Unhappo

Post by Joey Smith »

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1652

Seems like all the LostHead regulars are going down in flames lately ...... but who the heck is Jim and Vivian Blaga? (See below).
Pablo Rodriguez

Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 245

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: You ARE an "Employee" - 26 USC § 3401(c)
FRIVOLOUS DETERMINATION BY THE STATE


The State of NN has declared my fully refunded 2006 return as "frivolous" and my 2007 return "frivolous" (although they didn't state what the issues were, much like the IRS, and the State law in this regard, is nearly identical to 26 USC § 6702) However, in a phone call with them, they argued that everything that one earns is taxable, the only thing I earned was "wages", and that I was an "employee". However, they also realized that I filed a "zero" amended return. Here's the issues as I see it:

1. I actually do have a math error on both return because the State takes the adjusted gross income after deductions and adds certain monies back into it before they begin their processing. When I amended my return, I neglected to put this money back in. When I figured out my math error, I realized that I had -$20,200 income plus $6,700 of State additions leaving me with a taxable State income of -$13,500 in both years.

2. I have taken a position that is frivolous (which is discussed below) or my return lacks evidences an intention to delay, impede or negate the revenue laws of the State.

In 2006, I have a U.S. Treasury Account Transcript that shows I had zero (0) taxable income. However, due to the State's "frivolous" determination, it demands that I return the "taxes" due plus a $500 "frivolous" penalty plus interest. For 2007, I filed the exact same reasons and words on all federal and state forms. The IRS recently challenged me to sue them in District Court to get them to process my 2007 return! In the meantime, the State declared the 2007 amended return "frivolous" for the same two reasons stated above.

The Long Decision
The "zero" amended return is easy to discuss with the Long decision out of the 9th circuit court. Besides that, there would have been no change in the taxable income because the math errors were inconsequential.

Identical Reasoning
In summary, both 2006 and 2007 State returns used Forms 4852. Each amended return has the identical reasons for amending. Further, each Form 4852 states that I earned no "wages" based on a reading of 26 USC 3401(a) and 3121(c). I think that no matter how you cut it, the key to the discussion of "wages" falls on a discussion of "employee", a constituent part of the definition of "wages" and "employer". Even though the burden is on the State to prove that I was an "employee", they reference the Federal law as to what constitutes an "employer", "employee", and "wages."

You ARE an "employee" and you earned "wages"
In reviewing State-level tax hearing decisions, the State of XX uses the following paragraph [quoted from an IRS web page!] to consistently deny someone's claim that they were not an "employee" or didn't earn "wages."

Quote:
Section 3401(c) defines "employee" and states that the term "includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . ." This language does not address how other employees' wages are subject to withholding or taxation. Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word "includes" "shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." Thus, the word "includes" as used in the definition of "employee" is a term of enlargement, not of limitation. It clearly makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of "employee", which generally includes private citizens.

This horrible piece of reasoning comes from the IRS' web site about "Anti-Tax Law Evasion Schemes - Law and Arguments (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art ... 04,00.html):

Quote:
D. Contention: The only "employees" subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government.

Some argue that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal income tax liability. This argument is based on an apparent misinterpretation of section 3401, which imposes responsibilities to withhold tax from "wages." That section establishes the general rule that "wages" include all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer. Section 3401(c) goes on to state that the term "employee" includes "an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof".

The Law:
Section 3401(c) defines "employee" and states that the term "includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . ." This language does not address how other employees' wages are subject to withholding or taxation. Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word "includes" "shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." Thus, the word "includes" as used in the definition of "employee" is a term of enlargement, not of limitation. It clearly makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of "employee", which generally includes private citizens.

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7 th Cir. 1985) - Calling the instructions Latham wanted given to the jury "inane," the court said, "[the] instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of 'employee' does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious within the context of [the law] the word 'includes' is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others."

Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1 st Cir. 1986) - The court rejected Sullivan's attempt to recover a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, stating "to the extent [he] argues that he received no 'wages' . . . because he was not an 'employee' within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. . . . The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein." The court imposed sanctions on Sullivan for bringing a frivolous appeal.

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D. Wis. 1985) - The court rejected the taxpayer's argument "that he is not an 'employee' under I.R.C. § 3401(c) because he is not a federal officer, employee, elected official, or corporate officer," stating, "[he] mistakenly assumes that this definition of 'employee' excludes all other wage earners."

Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-476, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 813, 816 (1994) - The court characterized Pabon's position - including that she was not subject to tax because she was not an employee of the federal or state governments - as "nothing but tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish." The court imposed a penalty of $2,500 on Pabon for bringing a frivolous case, stating that she "regards this case as a vehicle to protest the tax laws of this country and espouse her own misguided views."


This analogy fails on so many points. Here's a counter-analogy: All computers are machines. A drill is a machine. Therefore, a drill is a computer. Or another analogy: All elephants are mammals. A dolphin is a mammal. Therefore, an elephant is a dolphin.

Research
I reviewed 26 circuit court decisions and over 111 Tax Court decisions about the use of 26 USC § 3401(a) and the fact that they were not "employees." In each case, the filer lost by the court willfully misinterpreting the term "Includes and Including." I think that if I'm going to state that I wasn't an "employee" and didn't earn "wages" and I want to fight the 3401(a) reasoning, I must provide a clear cohesive discussion about the real meaning of "Includes" and "Including", so crucial to the discussion of "wages" and "employee".


PLAN OF ACTION
1. In challenging the State's "frivolous" determination, I have determined that I must go "with all guns blazing." This paperwork may eventually lead to an administrative hearing and possibly State District Court. I have to have all my arguments in place now.

2. The State's taxable income begins with Federal gov't's determination. In 2006, I have IRS documentation showing that I had ZERO (0) taxable income. Therefore, I could not possibly have State taxable income.

3. I filed timely returns based on the State's requirements that an amended return must be filed within 6 months if there is a change to a federal taxable income or the federal gov't makes a change to taxable income.

4. There is still the issue of a "frivolous" charge that I must respond to. That is the only reason I am challenging the determinations and the reason I want an administrative review. As in the Federal gov't for frivolous tax submissions (26 USC § 6702), there are two main points and two points within each main point but the main points MUST BOTH BE TRUE:

(a)(1) I will use the Long decision to show that a "zero" return still has enough information by which taxes can be calculated.

OR

(a)(2) There were "math errors" due to failing to add-in the State's "additions" to federal taxable income. However, they were of such a nature that, when coupled with zero (0) "wages" (actually -$20,500), the amount of taxable income was not changed. Since there is no change to taxable amounts, their reasoning is weak at best, or a complete failure.

AND

(b)(1) The return must be viewed on "its face". There is nothing "on the face of the return" that shows that it is intending to "delay, impede, or negate" State revenue laws. Cite the applicable law that Jim and Vivian Blaga used.

OR

(b)(2) I have taken a "frivolous" position. If I can take care of part (a) above, there is no real need to discuss this. However, the State will probably disregard my arguments in part (a) above so I must also decimate this argument, too. First to mention is that a "frivolous" determination must be objective, not subjective (cite Jim and Vivan's case cites). And then, require the State to declare which position I've taken.

5. Fight for the admission of the 2006 amended State return FIRST. By doing this, the State will be forced to admit that my 2006 return, with its reasoning on all the Forms 4852 and amended return, was acceptable. If it is, then they must also declare my 2007 return as valid and not "frivolous" because it uses the exact same wording as the 2006 return.


QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Should I use my 2006 return with its reasoning (that the IRS accepted and completely refunded with a transcript showing zero (0) taxable income) to justify my 2007 return with its identical reasoning?
I have been advised that I cannot use the one to justify or support the other. I find this incredible to believe. If I go to court, you can believe that the State or the feds would lump both returns together for processing. Why would they do that? Well, it strengthens their case. But it also helps mine! And in my research, every multi-year tax return has been dealt with on a "combined" basis, that is, tax years 2004-2006, for example.

2. Should I delve into a deep discussion of the meaning of "Includes" and "Including", discuss the Treasury Decision of 1927, discuss the most recent "find" about using "Includes" when the IRS shows that it means "moreover or in addition to", etc.?

3. Should I discuss "wages" and "employee" in my legal reasoning?
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Nikki

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Nikki »

James M. & Vivian Blaga

USTC: 19391-08L -- "L" indicates appeal of CDPH determination.
8101-09

From 19391-08L Petitioners' RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR DENIAL OF RESPONDENT’S MOTION
Respondent’s motion, paragraphs numbered 71 and 75, alleges that petitioners received or earned “wages”. Petitioners expressly deny this allegation. Respondent’s allegation assumes facts not in evidence and is an unsupported conclusion of law. Respondent is making what is essentially a Straw Man Argument, an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of the testimony found on our returns. Petitioners returns, on their face, expressly rebuts under penalties of perjury that petitioners received “wages” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401 and §3121.
CKB beat me on this one, but the text, above, points straight back at PH's loserheads theory.

Of course, when they lose their case, someone at LosrHeads will be quick to point out exactly which 't' they forgot to cross, thereby defeating any negative reflection on the CtC(il)logic.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by LPC »

Pablo Rodriguez wrote:Research
I reviewed 26 circuit court decisions and over 111 Tax Court decisions about the use of 26 USC § 3401(a) and the fact that they were not "employees." In each case, the filer lost by the court willfully misinterpreting the term "Includes and Including."
Unbelievable.

Incidentally, I've been watching Pablo for awhile, because the seemed ably suited to fill the Lost Horizons "enthusiastic puppy" role recently vacated by Weston White.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by LPC »

The Hendrickson/LH response to the Blaga Tax Court proceedings is a typical "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

The IRS filed a motion for summary judgment, the Blagas filed blather, and the Tax Court denied the IRS motion, so therefore the Blaga filed a "powerful response."

The reality is much more prosaic. Buried in the gibberish filed by the Blagas is a denial that they received "wages." The Tax Court must have seen that as a factual issue, and given the Blagas the benefit of the doubt, because the judge issued the following order:
Judge Colvin wrote:On December 16, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 17, 2009, petitioners filed their Response thereto.

Upon due consideration, it appearing that respondent has failed to establish there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, it is

ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment filed December 16, 2008, is denied.
At some point, the Blagas will admit that they received money for work they did, or the IRS will introduce evidence that they did indeed receive the money reported as wages on the W-2, and then the game will be up, and they will be facing not only an adverse judgment but also sanctions.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Nikki

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Nikki »

In addition, the Blagas are attempting to challenge the underlying liability in a "L" case.

Although there are a FEW circumstances where the Tax Court permits this, they aren't in that position.

If they are extremely lucky, when they lose their collection case, they won't be sanctioned.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Gregg »

Screw 'em, I'd charge them with perjury
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Gregg »

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Should I use my 2006 return with its reasoning (that the IRS accepted and completely refunded with a transcript showing zero (0) taxable income) to justify my 2007 return with its identical reasoning?
Sure, it's possible they missed it by mistake when they got you on all the other ones, you bringing it up will correct that right away.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by LPC »

Nikki wrote:In addition, the Blagas are attempting to challenge the underlying liability in a "L" case.

Although there are a FEW circumstances where the Tax Court permits this, they aren't in that position.
I think it's a collection case involving a frivolous return penalty, and so they are allowed to contest the liability (i.e., the penalty) by proving that the returns in question were not "frivolous."

They are arguing that a return reporting $0 in wages is not frivolous if they in fact received $0 in wages, and have denied receiving any wages.

I think that, once the court realizes that they received money for working, and are playing word games with the meaning of "wages," the court will get pissed by the waste of time and judicial resources.

But for now, they are presenting at least the appearance of a factual dispute.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
mred

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by mred »

Just an ole farm boy here with his simplistic opinion.
The Self-Employed, 1099's, W-9's etc.
Those who are self-employed will want to note that the definition of self-employment 'income', found at Section 1402(b) of Chapter 2, Subtitle A, is: "...the net earnings from self-employment derived by an individual...". "Net earnings from self-employment", found at Section 1402(a) of that same chapter, is: "the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business...", and "trade or business" is defined in Section 7701(26), Chapter 79 of Subtitle F as follows:"The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office". (There is a slightly modified definition of "trade or business" at 1402(c) which has the same ultimate meaning, though in a more complicated form.)

A form 1099 Misc asks a payer to list all payments made in the course of their "trade or business", pursuant to Section 6041A of Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part III, Subpart B.

Such a form, if sent in by a payer and not challenged and rebutted by the payee, will leave the impression (and legal presumption) that the payee received 'income' connected with 'the performance of the functions of a public office' and this connected ‘income’ will create the legal presumption that the payee is liable for income tax on this connected ‘income’. Go figure!
The legal use of the word “includes” is to include that which is listed as an example as above in, "The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office". Meaning it includes all items within the same class of the example item(s) listed which in this case is the example “the performance of the functions of a public office.” or of the class of some government related functions and does not ever mean or include anything within the class of any private sector related functions. If private sector related functions where to be included, an example of a private sector function would be listed along with the “functions of a public office” example, instead of only listing the public office classification as listed in this case.

A much simpler example would be, where it to say “includes apples, oranges, and pears”, it would be meant to include all of the class of fruits known as citrus fruits, and would specifically not include vegetables such as tomatoes, carrots and onions. The use of includes within the law really is this simple to understand. (The law means what it says, and says what it means.)

The IRS likes to interpret includes apples, oranges and pears to mean it also includes tomatoes, carrots and onions, as well as wheat, oats and barley, as well as coffee beans, and anything else that grows and can be harvested on this planet. Such a powerful ability of expansion, when we allow them to get away with it, eh? J

I wrote the proceeding to myself a year or so ago and it has served me well. I leave it to the reader to rewrite it to apply to any definition which uses the word includes, such as employee and employer, etc refered to in this thread.

Ed
God is Good, Beer is Great, and People are Crazy.
http://www.redstateupdate.com/video/people-are-crazy
Nikki

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Nikki »

Where did that smilie with the wall go :?:

How many times do we have to educate people about "includes"?
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by LPC »

mred wrote:Just an ole farm boy here with his simplistic opinion.
The Self-Employed, 1099's, W-9's etc.
Those who are self-employed will want to note that the definition of self-employment 'income', found at Section 1402(b) of Chapter 2, Subtitle A, is: "...the net earnings from self-employment derived by an individual...". "Net earnings from self-employment", found at Section 1402(a) of that same chapter, is: "the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business...", and "trade or business" is defined in Section 7701(26), Chapter 79 of Subtitle F as follows:"The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office". (There is a slightly modified definition of "trade or business" at 1402(c) which has the same ultimate meaning, though in a more complicated form.)

A form 1099 Misc asks a payer to list all payments made in the course of their "trade or business", pursuant to Section 6041A of Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part III, Subpart B.

Such a form, if sent in by a payer and not challenged and rebutted by the payee, will leave the impression (and legal presumption) that the payee received 'income' connected with 'the performance of the functions of a public office' and this connected ‘income’ will create the legal presumption that the payee is liable for income tax on this connected ‘income’. Go figure!
I see that this is your first posting, so welcome to Quatloos.

Nice copy-and-paste. What you've copied appears on Peter Hendrickson's web site, as well as two others, but my guess is that he wrote it.

Which means that both you and Hendrickson (and at least two other people) don't understand the difference between the "payer" and the "payee."

The payer is the person who *pays* the money, and the payee is the person who *receives* the money.

According to what is quoted above, Form 1099 must be filed by the *payer* if the *payer* is engaged in trade or business. There is nothing about whether the *payee* is engaged is a trade or business, so the filing of the Form 1099 is irrelevant to whether the payee is engaged in a trade or business.

And whether the payee has "net earnings from self-employment" is a different question from whether the payee has gross income subject to income tax.

And yes, your opinions are "simplistic." But also convoluted and self-serving.
mred wrote:The legal use of the word “includes” is to include that which is listed as an example as above in, "The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office".
This is borderline gibberish.

And to the extent that it is coherent, it is wrong.

Section 7701(c) specifically states that the use of "includes" does not exclude other meanings of the term or word defined. Defining "trade or business" to *include* service in a public office does not *exclude* what would otherwise be understood to be a "trade or business."

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes for details.
mred wrote:I wrote the proceeding to myself a year or so ago and it has served me well.
I think you meant "preceding."

And why are you writing to yourself? Aren't you on speaking terms with yourself?
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Weston White

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Weston White »

does not exclude other meanings of the term or word defined
Term not word, term not word, as in the legal term defined. This means that other similar things not included within that special legal term still take on the meaning of those items left out. A word can have several distinctive meanings. This legalese, serves to clarify the indented context of that legal term being specially defined.

Otherwise, quite frankly, there would be NO NEED AT ALL TO GIVE IT ANY DEFINED MEANING IN THE BODY OF LAW... FOR VERY OBVIOUS REASONS. [Because that is what it already meant to begin with.] As an example some definitions of UNITED STATES leaves out the inclusion of the several states while other definitions include the several states... this is done for an intended effect.

The terms defined within the Revenue Acts are substantiated by the Congressional Record calling for the framing of the XVI Amendment. This serves to explain why the terms in the IRC are defined as they are and why they have remained so defined through time.

http://defendindependence.org/OIF/CR_XVIA_V44.PDF
Nikki

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Nikki »

Except that every court which has ever reviewed a controversy about tax laws centering on the impact of "includes" or "Including" has come to the completely opposite conclusion from yours.

While your view is marginally ineresting from an academic standpoint, I would prefer to place any of my money at risk to go along with the courts' decisions.

The likelihood of my success is infinitely better than yours. But, that's just another reason why I, unlike you, never get any letters from the IRS except those which start with "Refund enclosed"
Last edited by Nikki on Tue May 05, 2009 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
jkeeb
Pirate Judge of Which Things Work
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by jkeeb »

I guess Congress in their infinite wisdom figured that United States was a pretty simple word that didn't need much clarifying. Same for the word employee which has been defined by the courts.

I always wanted to see a court session where someone like you tried to explain to the judge with a straight face that the term United States does not include the various states. I mean it's easy to include that in a bunch of BS in a written argument. The court will just give the frivolous argument back. But to tell a judge in person. I would love to see it.
Remember that CtC is about the rule of law.

John J. Bulten
Weston White

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Weston White »

jkeeb wrote:I guess Congress in their infinite wisdom figured that United States was a pretty simple word that didn't need much clarifying. Same for the word employee which has been defined by the courts.

I always wanted to see a court session where someone like you tried to explain to the judge with a straight face that the term United States does not include the various states. I mean it's easy to include that in a bunch of BS in a written argument. The court will just give the frivolous argument back. But to tell a judge in person. I would love to see it.
The United States of America includes the several states, the United States, may or may not depending upon its intended scope. Why do you think they struck the use of United States of America from the USC and replaced it with United States? Just for something fun and challenging to do? Yea right.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Gregg »

Weston White wrote:
jkeeb wrote:I guess Congress in their infinite wisdom figured that United States was a pretty simple word that didn't need much clarifying. Same for the word employee which has been defined by the courts.

I always wanted to see a court session where someone like you tried to explain to the judge with a straight face that the term United States does not include the various states. I mean it's easy to include that in a bunch of BS in a written argument. The court will just give the frivolous argument back. But to tell a judge in person. I would love to see it.
The United States of America includes the several states, the United States, may or may not depending upon its intended scope. Why do you think they struck the use of United States of America from the USC and replaced it with United States? Just for something fun and challenging to do? Yea right.
or perhaps it was totally inadvertence by someone who, like the rest of us who are not retarded narcissist assholes didn't catch it or didn't think it was worth the edit when they did.
Tax protesters and their ilk are so anal about the letter of law (as they interpret it anyhow) that they can construct contorted definitions without realizing that by so doing they make the concept of written law look insane. If Congress, in some magical world noticed your stupid arguments and passes a law saying 'Every penny of money Weston White ever receives, even if it falls from they sky and lands in his pocket, shall be henceforth and forever taxable income" I'm sure you'd make some piddling reason why they didn't mean you, and prolly find a way to say Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton and Moses back this claim up.
Put on your tinfoil hat, and go set in the corner and shut up, you may learn something.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Weston White

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Weston White »

Gregg wrote:
Weston White wrote:
jkeeb wrote:I guess Congress in their infinite wisdom figured that United States was a pretty simple word that didn't need much clarifying. Same for the word employee which has been defined by the courts.

I always wanted to see a court session where someone like you tried to explain to the judge with a straight face that the term United States does not include the various states. I mean it's easy to include that in a bunch of BS in a written argument. The court will just give the frivolous argument back. But to tell a judge in person. I would love to see it.
The United States of America includes the several states, the United States, may or may not depending upon its intended scope. Why do you think they struck the use of United States of America from the USC and replaced it with United States? Just for something fun and challenging to do? Yea right.
or perhaps it was totally inadvertence by someone who, like the rest of us who are not retarded narcissist assholes didn't catch it or didn't think it was worth the edit when they did.
Tax protesters and their ilk are so anal about the letter of law (as they interpret it anyhow) that they can construct contorted definitions without realizing that by so doing they make the concept of written law look insane. If Congress, in some magical world noticed your stupid arguments and passes a law saying 'Every penny of money Weston White ever receives, even if it falls from they sky and lands in his pocket, shall be henceforth and forever taxable income" I'm sure you'd make some piddling reason why they didn't mean you, and prolly find a way to say Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton and Moses back this claim up.
Put on your tinfoil hat, and go set in the corner and shut up, you may learn something.

No, it is all in accord with established legal doctrine and principle.

If such a law was made sure I would make objection, being that obviously such a law would not follow the apportionment or the uniformity requirements as they need to for the purposes of taxation.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Gregg »

Weston White is a troll. His specious theories and arguments about Federal Income Tax Law have been thoroughly addressed. Following Weston White's advice on tax matters will likely result in a very unpleasant result (see Hendrickson, Peter http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1821).

Please don't feed the troll.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Nikki

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Nikki »

If such a law was made sure I would make objection, being that obviously such a law would not follow the apportionment or the uniformity requirements as they need to for the purposes of taxation.
Thereby exhibiting yet another area of gross ignorance.

If a tax law relating to "a municipal sports stadium in a city of population betweeen xx and yyy, located in relatively specific geographic location" was upheld as constitutional, then "there shall be imposed a 90% tax rate on the gross receipts, with no deductions or credits to be applied, of any individual who, as of 5/5/09, was named or commonly known as Weston White, or any close variation thereof and who, as of 5/5/09, had made at least 500 posts to the Internet forum commonly known as Quatloos" would be equally apportioned and uniform.
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Pablo Unhappo

Post by Arthur Rubin »

Nikki wrote:If a tax law relating to "a municipal sports stadium in a city of population betweeen xx and yyy, located in relatively specific geographic location" was upheld as constitutional, then "there shall be imposed a 90% tax rate on the gross receipts, with no deductions or credits to be applied, of any individual who, as of 5/5/09, was named or commonly known as Weston White, or any close variation thereof and who, as of 5/5/09, had made at least 500 posts to the Internet forum commonly known as Quatloos" would be equally apportioned and uniform.
Hmmm. With a little work, I could probably draft one which selects WW, but doesn't violate the uniformity clause. How about including "has had over $100,000 in tax penalties assessed"....
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95