I did something else Otto suggested.

[david]

I did something else Otto suggested.
I asked a kid who had just passed his bar exam if he was familiar with the two Pollock cases and the 16th Amnd.. He said "Yes". I asked him if the 16th Amnd. overruled the Pollock cases. He said 'Yes, my professor told me so.',,,,,. I asked him if he was familiar with Flint, Brushaber, Stanton. He said 'Yes'.... I asked a successful retired tax lawyer the same questions. He answered 'Yes' to all 3 questions also. I asked several other lawyers in other areas of practice. I heard 'I don't know', 'Yes', or a ""SNORT!! Of course NOT!!!"" to the second question. To those snorts, I laid enough money on their tables to cover their fee for a few hours to discuss my thoughts with me. They all refused. I hope most of you grizzled Quatloos regular experts would Snort!! too and tell me 'Of course Not!' when asked the second question. Maybe I should have asked first....
I was given an opportunity to examine some questions for a bar exam and answer them, which I did. I was shocked the answers had nothing to do with common sense or even what little I knew of prevailing citations. The proper answers that would be accepted were the ones taking the easy way out or what could be gotten away with. I think duke2earl spoke sadly of that. I sincerely hope the judges presiding in our courts are of better quality than what duke2earl laments.
No, you Quatloos regulars are not the plaintiff unless one of you or you as a group appearing in the name of Quatloos would walk into a court somewhere and file a complaint. And I certainly hope you are not here to "... persuade you about what the law is.." "We are here to teach the law. (Famspear)". I came to this website because I needed help to better comprehend my basic opinion. I came to this website because I think you are good. I needed to be taught. I presented my thought. You attempted to shred it and pointed a bone where I might locate your support so that I could see for myself and reach my own conclusions. And you've pushed me hard to support my conclusions. I couldn't buy a better education than this. It's just that you're not an accredited institution and I can't get a license to practice like some of you experienced Quatloos regular experts appear to be. I think I'm aware what the consequences might be,,, if I'm wrong.... And I do not claim to be a junkyard, bar room, or barracks lawyer.
Please bear with me, I don't have access to a particular citation right now. However, that case was concerning a Telegraph Co. and a law offered in evidence as fact to be examined for it's constitutional validity. The judge said the law must be examined between it's four corners, the words contained therein to be defined in the best possible light to be conformal with it's constitutional obligation. Words and intentions not found between the four corners would not be considered. It is my impression that is how lower courts function. If something is not there, it won't be considered....
For what I have to say that follows, please remove the words "" but, what if, exempt, and exclude "" from your dictionaries. Thanks.
I think we all agree that all persons and all forms of property accumulated, existing withing the reach of the US Const., are taxable for revenue raising purposes. I think we all agree that all acts commited within the reach of the Const. are taxable for revenue raising purposes also. I think we all agree that the permission (authority) we gave our employees to collect revenue from us resides within the Const.. I think we all agree that what the revenue raising law (tax) reaches and the method of computation determines the nature of the revenue raising law, direct or indirect. And, I think we all agree that to determine the nature of the revenue raising law, it must be examined between the four corners of the document to see if it conforms to the permission of the US Const.... Now lets examin the following.....
1] Congress passes a revenue raising bill ::: ""There is hereby imposed a revenue raising bill, to accumulate dollars, on (with regard to) all dollars existing by the rate of 1 dollar from each 2 dollar computation."" .... (can't find a current comparable 26 USC, and, (definition) added), dk)
In my opinion, the above bill identifies the species of property burdened, dollars,,, how the property will be measured, 2 dollar increments,,, and, what portion will be taken, 1 dollar... In my opinion, the above bill does not consider any other property, anticipated future dollars, or imaginary monetary worth, just things called 'dollar'. In my opinion, the above bill can be described as directly affecting property ( the source). In my opinion, the above bill would be conformable to the US Const..
2] Congress passes a second revenue raising bill ::: ""There is hereby imposed on (with regard to) all distilled spirits produced in ... the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on (with regard to) each proof gallon ..."" (26 USC 5001 with surplage removed and (definition) added), dk)
In my opinion, the above bill defines a particular act, distilling,,, which produces a particular species of property, distilled spirits,,, and specifies a uniform rate ($13.50) for a particular measure, gallon... In my opinion, the above bill is indirectly affecting the property. In my opinion, the above bill is compatable with the US Const..
3] Congress passes a third revenue raising bill ::: ""There is hereby imposed on (with regard to) the... income of every individual... a tax determined in accordance with the following table: .. If income is; $... the rate is; $...."" (26 USC 1 (c) with surplage removed and (definition) added, dk)
In my opinion, the above bill does not tax persons. In my opinion, the above bill makes no distinction of species of income (property) which is intended to be burdened, as in: money, land, cars, pigs, goats, loafs of bread, cigarettes, gasoline, furniture, all things accumulated, all things definable as income, taxable.... In my opinion, the word 'income' is a word of inclusion, enlargement, similar to 'all', as opposed to specific, as in 'land'. In my opinion, the above bill makes no mention of any activity the income (property) is, has been, or will be, derived from... In my opinion, the method in the above bill intended to be used to determine the measure of the unspecified income it is attempting to burden is assumed to be measurable as $... . And the rate is not equal or uniform.... In my opinion, the word taxable is redundant and even with it's inclusion does not clarify the bill above.
In my opinion, 26 USC 1 (c) contains shadows of maybe a direct tax or an indirect tax. I believe our US Const. demands a tax burdening us, our property, or our activities be specific with regard to the subject burdened and to contain the distinct nature of one or the other, not both or a third alternative. I believe there is no third option, regardless of how some individuals interprete the 16th Amnd..
In my opinion, 26 USC 1 (c) can not be interpreted between its four corners conformable to the US Const.
In my opinion, I am not protesting 26 USC 1 (c) because I have not been forced to pay anything under threat of injury or threat of further injury. In my opinion, I am not advocating anyone do as I have done unless that person has done his own investigation first, including becoming aware of possible consequences. In my opinion, I am not subject to the confusion of 26 USC 1 (c) because I have not submited any documents which would bring me under administrative examination. In my opinion, any third party documents submitted with regard to 26 USC 1 (c) in my name without my express permission constitutes fraud and is injurous to both the US (crime) and me (civil).
I would really enjoy an appreciate it if you guys would discuss this as you did my letters.
David

[Pottapaug1938]

David, since you seem unable to learn, I won't waste my time explaining what has already been explained before; but I will address two points.

First of all, in order to understand, and properly answer, a bar exam question, YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS, AND UNDERSTAND IT. If you try to use "common sense", you will FAIL. I'd like to recommend to you the book "Idiot America", written by Charles P. Pierce, formerly of the Boston Globe, since among other things it shows how "common sense" and "the Gut" can be used to come up with some pretty stupid concepts of what the law actually is.

Second of all, you are playing typical tax denier word games in attempting to assert that your income tax bill does not seek to tax "persons", but only "individuals". AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD BEFORE, just because a law doesn't use the words which you want it to use doesn't mean that it says what you want it to say.

And, finally: read the decision Wnuck v. Commissioner, since it will explain why many of us do not want to waste time taking your surmises on the law seriously.

[Famspear]

I did something else Otto suggested.
I asked a kid who had just passed his bar exam if he was familiar with the two Pollock cases and the 16th Amnd.. He said "Yes". I asked him if the 16th Amnd. overruled the Pollock cases. He said 'Yes, my professor told me so.',,,,,.I asked him if he was familiar with Flint, Brushaber, Stanton. He said 'Yes'....

Yes, the Pollock decisions were overruled by the Sixteenth Amendment. But I doubt your story about your having "asked a kid" who had just passed the bar exam.

I asked a successful retired tax lawyer the same questions. He answered 'Yes' to all 3 questions also.

Sounds right.

I asked several other lawyers in other areas of practice. I heard 'I don't know', 'Yes', or a ""SNORT!! Of course NOT!!!"" to the second question.

Sounds about right. In most law schools, tax law is an elective that is not taken by most law students. Indeed, I took two tax courses in law school, and we never covered Pollock or the Sixteenth Amendment.

David, it may surprise you to learn that the volume of law in this country is truly mind-boggling. For example, I took a course in law school, the subject of which was just one sentence in the United States Constitution. We spent an entire semester studying some of the case law surrounding that one sentence. Not only did we not get to all the case law interpreting that one sentence, we didn't even cover the entire sentence itself!

Contrary to what you may believe, David, studying the Sixteenth Amendment and its genesis is not really that important in the grand scheme of things. It's interesting to folks like us, because we study people like you. In the grown up world of real tax law, however, the big time tax lawyers are not studying Pollock or the Sixteenth Amendment. They have more important fish to fry.

To those snorts, I laid enough money on their tables to cover their fee for a few hours to discuss my thoughts with me. They all refused.

Sorry, but this sounds like a story you have made up for us.

I was given an opportunity to examine some questions for a bar exam and answer them, which I did. I was shocked the answers had nothing to do with common sense or even what little I knew of prevailing citations.

I doubt that you were given the opportunity to examine questions from a bar exam. And I doubt that you have the education or intellectual skills to properly evaluate the "answers" you claim you saw. [Note: Edited for clarity. Famspear]

No, you Quatloos regulars are not the plaintiff unless one of you or you as a group appearing in the name of Quatloos would walk into a court somewhere and file a complaint. And I certainly hope you are not here to "... persuade you about what the law is.." "We are here to teach the law. (Famspear)". I came to this website because I needed help to better comprehend my basic opinion. I came to this website because I think you are good. I needed to be taught. I presented my thought. You attempted to shred it and pointed a bone where I might locate your support so that I could see for myself and reach my own conclusions. And you've pushed me hard to support my conclusions. I couldn't buy a better education than this. It's just that you're not an accredited institution and I can't get a license to practice like some of you experienced Quatloos regular experts appear to be. I think I'm aware what the consequences might be,,, if I'm wrong.... And I do not claim to be a junkyard, bar room, or barracks lawyer.
Please bear with me, I don't have access to a particular citation right now. However, that case was concerning a Telegraph Co. and a law offered in evidence as fact to be examined for it's [sic] constitutional validity. The judge said the law must be examined between it's [sic] four corners, the words contained therein to be defined in the best possible light to be conformal with it's [sic] constitutional obligation. Words and intentions not found between the four corners would not be considered. It is my impression that is how lower courts function. If something is not there, it won't be considered....
For what I have to say that follows, please remove the words "" but, what if, exempt, and exclude "" from your dictionaries. Thanks.
I think we all agree that all persons and all forms of property accumulated, existing withing the reach of the US Const., are taxable for revenue raising purposes. I think we all agree that all acts commited within the reach of the Const. are taxable for revenue raising purposes also. I think we all agree that the permission (authority) we gave our employees to collect revenue from us resides within the Const.. I think we all agree that what the revenue raising law (tax) reaches and the method of computation determines the nature of the revenue raising law, direct or indirect. And, I think we all agree that to determine the nature of the revenue raising law, it must be examined between the four corners of the document to see if it conforms to the permission of the US Const.... Now lets examin [sic] the following.....
1] Congress passes a revenue raising bill ::: ""There is hereby imposed a revenue raising bill, to accumulate dollars, on (with regard to) all dollars existing by the rate of 1 dollar from each 2 dollar computation."" .... (can't find a current comparable 26 USC, and, (definition) added), dk)
In my opinion, the above bill identifies the species of property burdened, dollars,,, how the property will be measured, 2 dollar increments,,, and, what portion will be taken, 1 dollar... In my opinion, the above bill does not consider any other property, anticipated future dollars, or imaginary monetary worth, just things called 'dollar'. In my opinion, the above bill can be described as directly affecting property ( the source). In my opinion, the above bill would be conformable to the US Const..
2] Congress passes a second revenue raising bill ::: ""There is hereby imposed on (with regard to) all distilled spirits produced in ... the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on (with regard to) each proof gallon ..."" (26 USC 5001 with surplage removed and (definition) added), dk)
In my opinion, the above bill defines a particular act, distilling,,, which produces a particular species of property, distilled spirits,,, and specifies a uniform rate ($13.50) for a particular measure, gallon... In my opinion, the above bill is indirectly affecting the property. In my opinion, the above bill is compatable [sic] with the US Const..
3] Congress passes a third revenue raising bill ::: ""There is hereby imposed on (with regard to) the... income of every individual... a tax determined in accordance with the following table: .. If income is; $... the rate is; $...."" (26 USC 1 (c) with surplage [sic] removed and (definition) added, dk)
In my opinion, the above bill does not tax persons.

Bang! Stop there. You're wrong. Section 1(c) of title 26 of the U.S. Code does indeed tax "persons" -- or, more specifically, the "taxable income" of persons.

In my opinion, the above bill makes no distinction of species of income (property) which is intended to be burdened, as in: money, land, cars, pigs, goats, loafs of bread, cigarettes, gasoline, furniture, all things accumulated, all things definable as income, taxable.... In my opinion, the word 'income' is a word of inclusion, enlargement, similar to 'all', as opposed to specific, as in 'land'. In my opinion, the above bill makes no mention of any activity the income (property) is, has been, or will be, derived from...

The "bill" as you put it (meaning, the statute) does not "need" to mention an "activity."

In my opinion, the method in the above bill intended to be used to determine the measure of the unspecified income it is attempting to burden is assumed to be measurable as $... . And the rate is not equal or uniform.... In my opinion, the word taxable is redundant and even with it's [sic] inclusion does not clarify the bill above.

OK, now you've wandered off into the weeds. The tax rate is not "equal" to what? The tax rate is not "uniform" when compared to what? The word "taxable" is "redundant" with respect to what?

In my opinion, 26 USC 1 (c) contains shadows of maybe a direct tax or an indirect tax. I believe our US Const. demands a tax burdening us, our property, or our activities be specific with regard to the subject burdened and to contain the distinct nature of one or the other, not both or a third alternative.

There is nothing in the wording of section 1(c) that does not comply with any provision of the U.S. Constitution. The statute is as "specific" as it "needs" to be.

In my opinion, 26 USC 1 (c) can not be interpreted between its four corners conformable to the US Const.

You are wrong. And you haven't identified any way in which section 1(c) violates the U.S. Constitution.

In my opinion, I am not protesting 26 USC 1 (c) because I have not been forced to pay anything under threat of injury or threat of further injury.

The term "tax protester" is not limited to people who have been forced to pay something under threat, etc.

In my opinion, I am not subject to the confusion of 26 USC 1 (c) because I have not submited any documents which would bring me under administrative examination.

You are wrong. You are subject to 26 USC 1, and that has nothing to do with whether you have or have not submitted "documents" of some kind or another. Whether you are under "administrative examination" is not important.

In my opinion, any third party documents submitted with regard to 26 USC 1 (c) in my name without my express permission constitutes fraud and is injurous to both the US (crime) and me (civil).

You are wrong. For example, Form W-2 reports and Form 1099 reports might be considered "third party documents," and under the law no one needs your "permission" to submit such documents.

[Duke2Earl]

David has again proven that reading comprehension is a real issue with him. He clearly did not understand my post or the point I was making. I was showing concern about how CLIENTS pressured professionals to see what those CLIENTS could get away with and that the professionals were placed in difficult positions. I was saying that unfortunately the society has changed to seemingly be more tolerant of cheating. And that David's dissembling might just be another symptom of the general lack of ethics and respect for law and the courts in our society. This had NOTHING to do with the ethics or actions of the courts. I was saying that David is the problem, not the courts.

Reading with comprehension is an important skill, David. That is a large part of your problem; you read what you want to see, not what is actually there.