CtC Forum 2

[Nikki]

It's too soon to call it LoserHeadsLite, but it's starting to look like Quatloos Jr.

If enough CtCs join up there, perhaps it can serve (with outside assistance) as a halfway(-to-reality) house.

I suggest a gentle approach, however, since they are potentially on the road to recovery.

[Demosthenes]

I suggest a gentle approach, however, since they are potentially on the road to recovery.

What Nikki said.

There are only a couple of Pete followers registered there so far. If we come in with guns blazing, they'll simply go elsewhere.

[Famspear]

Just an observation, but it seems that peole get into trouble with the IRC when they take a bottom-up approach. That is they find a particular section exempting something very specific and try to apply it broadly. They try building their structure on a point and then expand out - which never works.

The IRC is a top-down document in that it (and by extension the tax payer should) assumes everything, every last cent is taxable unless there is a particular section that says otherwise.

That's an excellent point.

[Nikki]

For tax evaders, the approach toward the IRC and the Regs is somewhat different.

They first decide that they do not want to pay taxes.

Next, they convince themselves that there's some loophole in the tax laws that will let them not pay.

Finally, they pore over the code, looking at each section in isolation, applying their own rules of construction and interpretation. until they come up with some particular way of squinting while reading to justify their pre-determined conclusion.

That's exactly the logic followed by Rose, Schiff, Hendrickson, and every other guru to date.

For example, Hendrickson's theory is perfectly valid IF you ignore the statutory definition of includes/including AND you ignore the words "this section only"

[ClobberroTestii]

For example, Hendrickson's theory is perfectly valid IF you ignore the statutory definition of includes/including AND you ignore the words "this section only"

What section specifically are you refering to?

[Duke2Earl]

For tax evaders, the approach toward the IRC and the Regs is somewhat different.

They first decide that they do not want to pay taxes.

Next, they convince themselves that there's some loophole in the tax laws that will let them not pay.

Finally, they pore over the code, looking at each section in isolation, applying their own rules of construction and interpretation. until they come up with some particular way of squinting while reading to justify their pre-determined conclusion.

That's exactly the logic followed by Rose, Schiff, Hendrickson, and every other guru to date.

For example, Hendrickson's theory is perfectly valid IF you ignore the statutory definition of includes/including AND you ignore the words "this section only"

I wish... boy, do I wish that this type of "logic" was limited to tax evaders. In my too many years in the tax trenches, I have seen lots (way too many, in fact) of opinions of allegedly respectable tax firms that take the exact same approach to determining if some particular item is taxable or some benefit or credit is available. But I am still working and you will all probably have to wait for my memoirs for specific examples. But know that damn near every tax shelter, tax scheme and other game the courts have shut down was supported by "opinions" of the professionals which all too often used exactly the "logic" you describe. It's all a matter of degree. The tax evaders apply their "logic" to the tax code as a whole, practitioners limit the same logical approach to specific items.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

For tax evaders, the approach toward the IRC and the Regs is somewhat different.

They first decide that they do not want to pay taxes.

Next, they convince themselves that there's some loophole in the tax laws that will let them not pay.

Finally, they pore over the code, looking at each section in isolation, applying their own rules of construction and interpretation. until they come up with some particular way of squinting while reading to justify their pre-determined conclusion.

That's exactly the logic followed by Rose, Schiff, Hendrickson, and every other guru to date.

For example, Hendrickson's theory is perfectly valid IF you ignore the statutory definition of includes/including AND you ignore the words "this section only"

The dumb 'tax evaders' follow what you suggest, and that is part of their mistake...

If I'm not mistaken, the tax code was written for 'taxpayers'. Why would a true 'non-taxpayer' use a taxpayers code (title 26) if s/he doesnt believe they are a 'taxpayer'?

[LPC]

For example, Hendrickson's theory is perfectly valid IF you ignore the statutory definition of includes/including AND you ignore the words "this section only"

What section specifically are you refering to?

See sections 3401(c) and 7701(c).

(I think Nikki meant "For purposes of this chapter" and not "this section only.")

[LPC]

Why would a true 'non-taxpayer' use a taxpayers code (title 26) if s/he doesnt believe they are a 'taxpayer'?

What you believe is irrelevant. If you are a citizen or resident of the United States and you receive gross income, then you are a "taxpayer" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code regardless of whether or not you believe it.

[ClobberroTestii]

For example, Hendrickson's theory is perfectly valid IF you ignore the statutory definition of includes/including AND you ignore the words "this section only"

What section specifically are you refering to?

See sections 3401(c) and 7701(c).

(I think Nikki meant "For purposes of this chapter" and not "this section only.")

How do you know what Nikki meant?
Regardless, where do you find the suggested limiting language in 7701(c)?

[LPC]

Regardless, where do you find the suggested limiting language in 7701(c)?

I only responded because I thought you were asking a question, not making the opening gambit in some illiterate argument.

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes and if you have additional questions, you should send them to Helen.Waite@null.com.

[ClobberroTestii]

Regardless, where do you find the suggested limiting language in 7701(c)?

I only responded because I thought you were asking a question, not making the opening gambit in some illiterate argument.

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes and if you have additional questions, you should send them to Helen.Waite@null.com.

Just as I thought...it's not there. And as always, you have a profoundly rude way of admitting your error and thus we see the true face of the dilitante.

[Nikki]

For example, Hendrickson's theory is perfectly valid IF you ignore the statutory definition of includes/including AND you ignore the words "this section only"

What section specifically are you refering to?

See sections 3401(c) and 7701(c).

(I think Nikki meant "For purposes of this chapter" and not "this section only.")

WHAT - EVER ! (insert blonde shrug)

The goal was the concept.

[Quixote]

For example, Hendrickson's theory is perfectly valid IF you ignore the statutory definition of includes/including AND you ignore the words "this section only"

I disagree. Even if the word "wages" meant exactly what Hendrickson says it does, his theory still fails because the definition of wages is irrelevant to the determination of gross income. The Supreme Court, in a decision personally blessed by Jesus, come down from Heaven for that purpose, could hold that the payments Hendrickson receives for services are not wages, that they are not even payments for services, but rather a sui generis form of property transfer. And they would still be gross income.

[Famspear]

Regardless, where do you find the suggested limiting language in 7701(c)?

I only responded because I thought you were asking a question, not making the opening gambit in some illiterate argument.

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes and if you have additional questions, you should send them to Helen.Waite@null.com.

Just as I thought...it's not there. And as always, you have a profoundly rude way of admitting your error and thus we see the true face of the dilitante.

Yes, it is there. And the word is dilettante.

PS: In section 7701, the words "includes" and "including" are words of expansion, not (strictly speaking) words of limitation.

PPS: The word "dilettante," in context, means "a person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge.....dabbler". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 319, G. & C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976). The author of the Tax Protester FAQ, with respect to the branch of knowledge known as "taxation" -- and in particular the study of tax protesters, cannot be properly characterized as having a "superficial" interest in the subject. He is a recognized expert. I have nothing against you, CT, but you yourself are a dabbler here -- with no discernable substantial knowledge of this subject. The aforementioned author is correct about the legal meaning of "includes" and "including" in section 7701.

By trying to label the aforementioned author with a French word that you yourself obviously took no care to apply correctly (indeed, a word that you apparently cannot even spell correctly), you committed a faux pas.

[LPC]

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes and if you have additional questions, you should send them to Helen.Waite@null.com.

Just as I thought...it's not there.

Just as I thought...you're illiterate.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Why would a true 'non-taxpayer' use a taxpayers code (title 26) if s/he doesnt believe they are a 'taxpayer'?

What you believe is irrelevant. If you are a citizen or resident of the United States and you receive gross income, then you are a "taxpayer" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code regardless of whether or not you believe it.

I would appreciate your providing Case law (preferably the most recent Supreme Court ruling, if applicable,) proving the following frivolous in terms to your claim above:

The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... +Amendment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And...."Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The Libertarian Party of the United States and other libertarians consider military conscription to be involuntary servitude in the sense of the Thirteenth Amendment. Some libertarians consider compulsory schooling and income taxation forms of involuntary servitude. John Taylor Gatto, a retired schoolteacher and libertarian activist critical of compulsory schooling writes of what he terms "The Cult Of Forced Schooling".[1]Republican/Libertarian CongressmanRon Paul has described income tax as, "a form of involuntary servitude[2], and has written, "... things like Selective Service and the income tax make me wonder how serious we really are in defending just basic freedoms[3]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude

[Nikki]

Liarboy, why did you drop the last sentence from the Wikipedia article you copied:

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

Are you so incredibly stupid that you believe that you could copy from the very first Google hit that comes up against 'supreme court income tax involuntary servitude' and no one would notice?

[The Operative]

The federal income tax only requires payment of taxes on a person’s income. It does not force a person to labor involuntarily, or to labor at all. Therefore, taxation does not meet the definition of involuntary servitude that GaSE posted. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment when convicted of a crime. U.S. CONST.
amend. XIII. The Thirteenth Amendment does not proscribe taxation. See Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953) (The specification, that the act violates the Thirteenth Amendment by imposing involuntary servitude upon an employer of domestic servants, seems to us far-fetched, indeed frivolous.”). Moreover, a prison sentence for failing to file a federal income tax return is not prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. See United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 983 (8th Cir. 1983) (“The Thirteenth Amendment, however, is inapplicable where involuntary servitude is imposed as punishment for a crime.”). Failing to file a federal income tax return or to pay federal income tax based on the argument that it would constitute involuntary servitude is frivolous.

[Gregg]

Liarboy, why did you drop the last sentence from the Wikipedia article you copied:

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

Are you so incredibly stupid that you believe that you could copy from the very first Google hit that comes up against 'supreme court income tax involuntary servitude' and no one would notice?

He's trying to start a trend I guess.