Re: Contrary to liberal beliefs,
Dave Johnson
news:news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Star_Child wrote:
>
> > "VRWC5" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message
> > news:q...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>Taxes based on income and property have contributed to a MAJOR and
> >>widespread disrespect for the law.
> >
> >
> > What else would you base it on? Race and religeon?
> >
> >
> Our Founding Fathers when establishing this country based taxes upon our
> consumption, e.g., excises and duties. Any direct taxes were to be
> resorted to only as the results of exigencies and then only as long as
> the exigencies dictated.
"founding fathers" also taxed slaves! South American and African
countries have taxes based on excises, duties and "consumption" - great
places to live!
Shyster1040
countries have taxes based on excises, duties and "consumption" - great
places to live!""
Heck, the "Founding Fathers" owned slaves! Oh, and BTW, income taxes were
ALWAYS considered to be indirect excise taxes - see Brushaber v. Union
Pacific, 240 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1916)("Moreover, in addition, the conclusion
reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that
income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct
taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation
on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such
unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to
accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of
direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise
to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax
to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would
not apply to it.").
Dale Eastman
If the question had related to an income tax, the
reference would have been fatal, as such taxes have
been always classed by the law of Great Britain as
direct taxes.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=157&page=429
Search for the second hit of the word "fatal"
--
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on
my website.
(Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)
I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet.
I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on
the internet.
I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the
internet.
That's because I'm not an IRS sycophant.
Cold Contacts via this page ONLY:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/contact.html
Randall M
under the rule of the Vatican.
Perry
> How do the laws of Great Britian apply to the US? I thought we were
> under the rule of the Vatican.
>
only if you are Catholic
Shyster1040
impliedly overrules that earlier case. Since Brushaber was decided AFTER
Pollock, Brushaber overruled Pollock to the extent of any inconsistency.
So, since we're playing cut-n-paste games, here's Brushaber on the
matter:
""Again the situation is aptly illustrated by the various acts taxing
incomes derived from property of every kind and nature which were enacted
beginning in 1861, and lasting during what may be termed the Civil War
period. It is not disputable that these latter taxing laws were classed
under the head of excises, duties, and imposts because it was assumed that
they were of that character inasmuch as, although putting a tax burden on
income of every kind, including that derived from property real or
personal, they were not taxes directly on property because of its
ownership. And this practical construction came in theory to be the
accepted one, since it was adopted without dissent by the most eminent of
the text writers. 1 Kent, Com. 254, 256; 1 Story, Const. 955; Cooley,
Const. Lim. 5th ed. *480; Miller, Constitution, 237; Pom. Const. Law, 281;
1 Hare, Const. Law, 249, 250; Burroughs, Taxn. 502; Ordronaux,
Constitutional Legislation, 225.""
And again:
""Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did
not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and
necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on
property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on
income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless
and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to
accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of
direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise
to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax
to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would
not apply to it.""
And finally:
""Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the
Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of
property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income
from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ),
its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no
dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact
that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past.
Id. p. 635.""
So, since, according to Brushaber, which is subsequent to Pollock and
therefore overrules Pollock to the extent of any inconsistency, income
taxes of whatever sort were indirect excise taxes, and since, according to
Brushaber, the Court in Pollock accepted this characterization (see the
second quoted section above), or, as stated by the Court in Brushaber, the
Pollock Court "recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its
nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such...."
Ball's in your court; whatcha gonna cut-n-paste next?
Dale Eastman
Randall M wrote:
> How do the laws of Great Britian apply to the US?
Uh, We were originally a British Colony....
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> Guess what Dale,
<snip>
Guess what Shyster,
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/backup.html
Richard Macdonald
news:d%v5f.2816$fc7....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Randall M wrote:
>> How do the laws of Great Britian apply to the US?
>
> Uh, We were originally a British Colony....
And the British Income Tax first imposed in 1798
post dates the US Constitution (in effect in1789),
so what the British consitered direct is not what
under US Constitution has been ruled as direct.
AllYou!
"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:d%v5f.2816$fc7....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>> How do the laws of Great Britian apply to the US?
>
>
> Uh, We were originally a British Colony....
So we'll forever be bound by its laws?
Why did you quit playing admit deny after my turn? Now it's yours. Do you
admit that any employer has the right to refuse to hire someone who does not
give that employer their SSN?
Lurkers...........please take special note of Dale's non-response.
AllYou!
>
>
> Shyster1040 wrote:
>
>> Guess what Dale,
>
> <snip>
So Dale...............why did you snip the part where your argument was
destroyed?
Lurkers, please note that Dale can never answer very simple and pointed
questions.
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Don't bother getting ahead of our dialog. Foundation stones first:
Q2. Was a purpose of the Constitution because under the Articles of
Confederation, the Federal Government was "embarrassed" when the
States didn't meet their quota's of funds for support of the Federal
government?
In other words, was a purpose of the Constitution to give Congress the
power to secure funds for the purpose of operating the Federal
government that was not included in the Articles of Confederation?
Richard Macdonald
>
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>
>> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d%v5f.2816$fc7....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Randall M wrote:
>>>
>>>>How do the laws of Great Britian apply to the US?
>>>
>>>Uh, We were originally a British Colony....
>>
>> And the British Income Tax first imposed in 1798
>> post dates the US Constitution (in effect in1789),
>> so what the British consitered direct is not what
>> under US Constitution has been ruled as direct.
>
> Don't bother getting ahead of our dialog. Foundation stones first:
>
> Q2. Was a purpose of the Constitution because under the Articles of
> Confederation, the Federal Government was "embarrassed" when the States
> didn't meet their quota's of funds for support of the Federal government?
>
> In other words, was a purpose of the Constitution to give Congress the
> power to secure funds for the purpose of operating the Federal government
> that was not included in the Articles of Confederation?
I am not answering any more of your questions until you answer this one of
mine os your assertion that the Tax Court is NOT a court:
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power . . ."
"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;"
US Constitution, Article III, Section 1
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish."
26 USC 7441. STATUS
There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the
United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court.
The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the
Tax Court.
SECTION 7442. JURISDICTION
The Tax Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred
on them by this title, by chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1939, by title II and title III of the Revenue Act of 1926 (44 Stat.
10-87), or by laws enacted subsequent to February 26, 1926.
"On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit
The chief judge of the United States Tax Court, an Article I court composed
of 19 judges appointed by the President, . . ."
Freytag v. Commissioner, KTC 1991-1 (S.Ct. 1991)
So Dale, real simple question:
Considering the above citations, the Tax Court is a Court
formed by Congress under its authority in Article I, Sec 8.
True or False.
AllYou!
"Richard Macdonald" <ramc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZNw5f.161769$xl6.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Marcello
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:ZcKdnVzKkZIrDMve...@conversent.net...
>
> Lurkers...........please take special note of Dale's non-response.
That's because he ignores you or killfiled you long ago like any decent
person should. You post with the intent to agitate only. If lurkers should
be aware of anything its your obsession with jumping into countless
discussions with nothing to add except insults and the continuous fix you
need in order to satisfy your inferiority complex filled by posting endless
replies to even the exact same posts (as evidenced by his 7 replies to the
same cut in paste in the fairtax thread and also evidenced by his name
calling response to this no doubt!). You assert no one will debate with you
but you don't have the decency to identify that its because you resort to
name-calling. Good luck with that.
Marcello
>
> Lurkers, please note that Dale can never answer very simple and pointed
> questions.
That's because he ignores you or killfiled you long ago like any decent
Marcello
Paul Thomas
"Marcello" <marc...@nospam.com> wrote about "AllY'all"
> You post with the intent to agitate only.
Amen Bro.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Shyster1040
all-fired in favor of a decision, Pollock v. Farmer's Trust, that was a
rank exercise in judicial activism without any semblance of reasonability.
Brushaber was the Court's return to sanity, and its attempt to recover
its reputation by sanitizing the idiocy of Pollock and bringing it back
into line with the (mostly unanimous) decisions of the 100 years of U.S.
history prior to that decision.
Again, I have to ask - have you actually ever sat down and read any of
these decisions, including the dissents. In particular, you should read
Justice Harlan's dissent to the opinion upon reconsideration the Court
issued in Pollock, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
Had you actually read the cases you like to cut-n-paste from, you would
have realized that the Supreme Court had already decided the issue of
whether a tax on income, including income derived from property as well as
from personal services, was a direct or indirect tax, and it UNANIMOUSLY
decided that a tax on income was an indirect tax in the nature of an
excise tax regardless of whether the income was derived from property or
services. The case is Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).
As appears from the Court's discussion of Springer in Pollock I (i.e., 157
U.S. 429, 579), but not from the published report of the Springer case
itself, the taxpayer in Springer derived income both from personal
services and from interest on bonds. The tax in that case was laid on the
income, gains, and profits of the taxpayer, apparently without regard to
source (i.e., property or activity that generated the income). The
taxpayer failed to pay the taxes, at which point the U.S. levied against
real property he owned and sold it to recover the taxes due. The taxpayer
then sued to invalidate the resulting deeds on the grounds that the tax
was unconstitutional as an unapportioned direct tax and that therefore the
levy and subsequent sale was invalid.
The Court reviewed the Constitution, history of its drafting and
enactment, and subsequent cases on the issue of direct versus indirect.
The Court drew its conclusions as follows:
"The question, what is a direct tax, is one exclusively in American
jurisprudence. The text-writers of the country are in entire accord upon
the subject.
Mr. Justice Story says all taxes are usually divided into two classes,-
those which are direct and those which are indirect,-and that 'under the
former denomination are included taxes on land or real property, and,
under the latter, taxes on consumption.' 1 Const., sect. 950.
Chancellor Kent, speaking of the case of Hylton v. United States, says:
'The better opinion seemed to be that the direct taxes contemplated by the
Constitution were only two; viz., a capitation or poll tax and a tax on
land.' 1 Com. 257. See also Cooley, Taxation, p. 5, note 2; Pomeroy,
Const. Law, 157; Sharswood's Blackstone, 308, note; Rawle, Const. 30;
Sergenat, Const. 305.
We are not aware that any writer, since Hylton v. United States was
decided, has expressed a view of the subject different from that of these
authors."
The Court then concluded: "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within
the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed
in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which
the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or
duty."
That should be repeated, just in case you missed it; to wit: a "direct
tax" under the Constitution is either a capitation tax or a tax on real
estate, and nothing more. A tax on income, without any regard to the
source from whence it was derived, is an indirect excise tax.
Now, the thing to recall is that, at the time Pollock was decided (1895),
there was already an unbroken line of Supreme Court precedents, usually by
a unanimous Court, that direct taxes were limited to capitation and real
estate taxes. Further, there was a unanimous opinion delivered a mere 15
years prior to Pollock, in which the Court held that a tax on income,
without regard to source, was an indirect excise tax. In addition, all of
the American commentators on the matter were in accord with this
conclusion; in the words of the Springer Court (words in square brackets
are mine]: "We are not aware that any writer, since Hylton v. United
States was decided [i.e., in 1796], has expressed a view of the subject
different from that of these authors [i.e., that a 'direct tax' was only a
capitation tax or a tax on real property]."
So, how does the Pollock Court go from that comprehensive body of
authority to drawing the conclusion that a tax on income derived from real
or personal property is to be made subject to the apportionment
requirement, which only applies to capitation taxes and taxes on real
property itself? Only be the rankest act of judicial activism imaginable
- not even the worst abuses of the 1960's come close.
As Harlan's dissent in Pollock II (158 U.S. 601) makes clear, the decision
of the Court (which was a 5-4 decision - something we've grown used to in
this day and age, but which was much rarer in the 1800's) in Pollock is,
to put it simply, wrong. They misapply prior (unanimous) Supreme Court
precedent, they ignore the unanimity of American commentators on the issue
over the course of about 100 years, and they apply an economic equivalence
test that does not, in fact, capture the distinction between a tax imposed
on the mere ownership of an asset and a tax imposed on the income derived
from the use of such asset.
As Harlan points out, a tax on the owners of real estate applies to a man
who owns his own personal residence (and from which he derives no income
because it is not rented out to a third party) as to a man who owns
multiple properties that he rents out at a hefty profit - both would be
required to pay an amount of tax that was levied on account of the
valuation of the property owned.
Again, as Harlan points out, this would have the effect of embarrassing
the home-owner who may not have the cash to pay the tax, other than by
renting his house out and becoming homeless himself, whereas the man who
owns the rental properties can pay the tax out of the rents he receives
(provided that the tax was not so high that he was forced to sell one of
the properties to pay it - if it were so high, then the unfairness of such
a tax is highlighted, making it obvious that this was the principal evil
the apportionment clause was designed to prevent).
By contrast, a tax imposed on the income derived from property would not
apply to the home-owner at all, because he derives no income therefrom,
and would never put the man who owns the rental properties to the harsh
choice of selling his properties because the tax would only ever be a
fraction of the net rental income he derived from the properties. Thus,
an income tax does not foster the evil that the apportionment clause was
intended to prevent, and accordingly there is no principled reason for
applying that clause to such a tax.
As I said earlier, I am very surprised that you would even consider giving
a moment's thought to the validity of a case based solely on the grossest
of unwarranted judicial activism; but then again, it's probably a better
bet that you've never read the case at all.
Finally, as I pointed out earlier (in another thread) Brushaber states
that income taxes were considered indirect taxes even prior to Pollock, a
conclusion more than reinforced by Springer, and therefore your
cut-n-paste quote from Pollock is, quite simply, a misstatement of the law
as it then existed prior to the 16th Amendment.
Also, in that other thread I granted, for the time being, your assertions
that taxes on real or personal property were direct taxes. On the
strength of Springer and Brushaber, I retract that grant as to personal
property. As the Court pointed out in Springer, a tax on personal
property is only ever direct, if at all, if it is levied against the
entire estate, both real and personal, of a person - it follows that a tax
on something less than your entire stock of goods, both real and personal,
e.g., a tax solely on automobiles, is an indirect tax.
Furthermore, just for clarification's sake, the economic equivalence test
ginned up by the Pollock Court is clearly wrong - for the reasons I stated
above - and therefore I disagree that a tax on the income derived from an
asset is identical with a tax on the asset itself - I think that both
Harlan's dissent in Pollock II and Brushaber will support me on this one.
So, you were saying about income taxes being direct taxes ...?
AllYou!
ROTFLMAOWPIMP
What a fucking moron! I can't believe you still don't get it. I've got you
dancing on the end of my line like a useless guppy, and no matter how many times
I catch & release, you just come right back again.
LOL!
"Marcello" <marc...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RWy5f.9554$gj1.6354@fed1read05...
AllYou!
"Paul Thomas" <paulth...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8oz5f.3759$aQ6...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Marcello" <marc...@nospam.com> wrote about "AllY'all"
>> You post with the intent to agitate only.
>
>
> Amen Bro.
I see you found another moron with whom to share your misery. LOL! You,
Marcello, & AK. The three stooges.
Hey, Marcello..........explain to me again how US manufacturers will be
penalized if a NST replaces the NIT. Please?
LOL!
AllYou!
ROTFLMAOWPIMP
What a fucking moron! I can't believe you still don't get it. I've got you
dancing on the end of my line like a useless guppy, and no matter how many times
I catch & release, you just come right back again.
Explain to me again how US manufacturers will be penalized if a NST replaces the
NIT. Please?
LOL!
AllYou!
Dale Eastman
--
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
>>>>>How do the laws of Great Britian apply to the US?
>>>>
>>>>Uh, We were originally a British Colony....
>>>
>>>And the British Income Tax first imposed in 1798
>>>post dates the US Constitution (in effect in1789),
>>>so what the British consitered direct is not what
>>>under US Constitution has been ruled as direct.
>>
>>Don't bother getting ahead of our dialog. Foundation stones first:
>>
>>Q2. Was a purpose of the Constitution because under the Articles of
>>Confederation, the Federal Government was "embarrassed" when the States
>>didn't meet their quota's of funds for support of the Federal government?
>>
>>In other words, was a purpose of the Constitution to give Congress the
>>power to secure funds for the purpose of operating the Federal government
>>that was not included in the Articles of Confederation?
>
>
> I am not answering any more of your questions until you answer this one of
> mine os your assertion that the Tax Court is NOT a court:
I don't care how long you hold your breath and pout.
Unless you have proof that I can be FORCED into tax court, tax court
is I_R_R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T.
Since it is I_R_R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T, I am done with the topic. I don't
care one whit about that corrupt den of inequity called "tax court".
You are dense.
Crap FLUSHED.
<SNIP>
AllYou!
> And here I thought he was just a burr stuck to my backside.
I am. Although I'm fairly sure that they'll figure it out for themselves, I'm
making extra sure that all the lurkers know that you're simply not able to
substantiate your positions one bit. Even you don't believe the crap you're
peddling.
AllYou!
> Since it is I_R_R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T, I am done with the topic.
In other words, you're done with the topic because you've once again been shown
to be completely and utterly wrong.
Richard Macdonald
>
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>
>>>>>>How do the laws of Great Britian apply to the US?
>>>>>
>>>>>Uh, We were originally a British Colony....
>>>>
>>>>And the British Income Tax first imposed in 1798
>>>>post dates the US Constitution (in effect in1789),
>>>>so what the British consitered direct is not what
>>>>under US Constitution has been ruled as direct.
>>>
>>>Don't bother getting ahead of our dialog. Foundation stones first:
>>>
>>>Q2. Was a purpose of the Constitution because under the Articles of
>>>Confederation, the Federal Government was "embarrassed" when the States
>>>didn't meet their quota's of funds for support of the Federal government?
>>>
>>>In other words, was a purpose of the Constitution to give Congress the
>>>power to secure funds for the purpose of operating the Federal government
>>>that was not included in the Articles of Confederation?
>>
>> I am not answering any more of your questions until you answer this one
>> of mine os your assertion that the Tax Court is NOT a court:
>
> I don't care how long you hold your breath and pout.
>
> Unless you have proof that I can be FORCED into tax court, tax court is
> I_R_R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T.
>
> Since it is I_R_R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T, I am done with the topic. I don't care
> one whit about that corrupt den of inequity called "tax court".
So do you now recant your assertion that the Tax Court
is not a Court in the face of overwhelming evidence that
it is really a Court under Article I of the Constitution.
Shyster1040
reasons you think; so perhaps you'd better start caring about it, whatever
rhetorical phrases you wish to append to it.
Firstly, on the subject of the deficiencies in your taxes, you are right -
you cannot be forced to litigate the issues involved with your unpaid
taxes in the Tax Court; in other words, you cannot be unwillingingly sued
in Tax Court. Of course, if you don't want to go to Tax Court, you'll
have to pay the full amount of the asserted deficiency before you can
contest the issues in the district courts or the Court of Federal Claims.
Secondly, notwithstanding the above, the district courts do not handle
much tax litigation, so they are likely to give very persuasive effect to
any Tax Court precedent.
Finally, on the matter of actually being "forced" into Tax Court - the Tax
Court possesses the power of subpoena to compel the attendance of
witnesses and the production of other evidence, Code Section 7456(a), and
it can punish disobedience or contempt by fine or imprisonment, just like
any other federal court, Code Section 7456(c). So, like I said, you can,
in fact, be "forced" into Tax Court, just not for the purpose of
litigating your unpaid taxes.
Shyster1040
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald SPAMMED:
> So Dale, real simple question:
> Considering the above citations, the Tax Court is a Court
> formed by Congress under its authority in Article I, Sec 8.
> True or False.
ir·rel·e·vant (¹-rµl“…-v…nt) adj. Unrelated to the matter at hand.
--ir·rel“e·vant·ly adv.
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> ...you can,
> in fact, be "forced" into Tax Court, just not for the purpose of
> litigating your unpaid taxes.
>
Since unpaid taxes are the issue, your post is self admitting as to
being IRRELEVANT.
ir·rel·e·vant (¹-rµl“…-v…nt) adj. Unrelated to the matter at hand.
--ir·rel“e·vant·ly adv.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/shyster.html
Shyster1040
would ignore the Tax Court completely until and unless someone could prove
that you could be forced into it. It said nothing about whether you could
be forced into it to litigate your unpaid taxes. Thus, I did in fact
provide precisely the proof you asked for.
Here's another thing you're wrong about - too bad I didn't get to add it
to my list on the other thread.
BTW, how many other of my posts have you fetishistically collected and
devoted an entire webpage to? That's really sick.
Richard Macdonald
>
> Richard Macdonald SPAMMED:
>
>> So Dale, real simple question:
>> Considering the above citations, the Tax Court is a Court
>> formed by Congress under its authority in Article I, Sec 8.
>> True or False.
>
> ir·rel·e·vant (¹-rµl“…-v…nt) adj. Unrelated to the matter at
> hand. --ir·rel“e·vant·ly adv.
Dale only thinks it is irrelevant is because he stuck his
foot in his mouth when he said that the tax Court was
not a Court when it is so easy to prove him wrong:
So Dale, real simple question:
Hale Westman
news:PyW5f.10623$W32.9728@trnddc06...
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VlT5f.16902$hY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Richard Macdonald SPAMMED:
> >
> >> So Dale, real simple question:
> >> Considering the above citations, the Tax Court is a Court
> >> formed by Congress under its authority in Article I, Sec 8.
> >> True or False.
> >
answer the question dale !
www.quatlosers.com internet tax scams
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> BTW, how many other of my posts have you fetishistically collected and
> devoted an entire webpage to? That's really sick.
Just the one where you are clearly and provably wrong.
If I feel ambitious, I'll engage with you on some of your other lies
of ignorance or malfeasance and add that to your page.
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald SPAMMED:
> Dale only thinks it is irrelevant is because he stuck his
> foot in his mouth when he said that the tax Court was
> not a Court when it is so easy to prove him wrong:
And Richard thinks he is so smart because he won a battle while
loosing the war.
Quote:
The IRS is not required to follow ANY Court
decision below that of the Supreme Court.
RMAC - 10/16/2005 2:49 PM
<snip>
> So Dale, real simple question:
> Considering the above citations, the Tax Court is a Court
> formed by Congress under its authority in Article I, Sec 8.
> True or False.
ir·rel·e·vant (¹-rµl“…-v…nt) adj. Unrelated to the
matter at hand. --ir·rel“e·vant·ly adv.
--
Hale Westman
Richard Macdonald SPAMMED:
> Dale only thinks it is irrelevant is because he stuck his
> foot in his mouth when he said that the tax Court was
> not a Court when it is so easy to prove him wrong:
> And Richard thinks he is so smart because he won a battle while
loosing the war.
dale, you're "loosing" (lost?) a war with your mental health
www.quatlosers.com "861" internet tax scams
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Richard Macdonald
>
> Richard Macdonald SPAMMED:
>
>> Dale only thinks it is irrelevant is because he stuck his
>> foot in his mouth when he said that the tax Court was
>> not a Court when it is so easy to prove him wrong:
>
> And Richard thinks he is so smart because he won a battle while loosing
> the war.
>
> Quote:
>
> The IRS is not required to follow ANY Court
> decision below that of the Supreme Court.
> RMAC - 10/16/2005 2:49 PM
>
> <snip>
>
>> So Dale, real simple question:
>> Considering the above citations, the Tax Court is a Court
>> formed by Congress under its authority in Article I, Sec 8.
>> True or False.
>
> ir·rel·e·vant (¹-rµl“…-v…nt) adj. Unrelated to the
> matter at hand. --ir·rel“e·vant·ly adv.
Translation: Dale cannot defend or support his assertion:
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:x5S3f.1292$hY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>120 T.C. No. 10
>UNITED STATES TAX COURT
>
>Is not a court.
Dale Eastman has asserted that the US Tax Court
is not a court, so let us see if he is correct.
US Constitution, Article III, Section 1.
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish."
So ALL Federal Courts below the Supreme Court are
established by Congress.
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power . . .
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;"
Congress has the specific power to create courts inferior to the Supreme
Court.
26 USC 7441. STATUS
There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the
United States, a court of record to be known as the United States
Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge
and the judges of the Tax Court.
Congress has enacted legislation under their specified power
to create courts lesser than the Supreme Court in their creation
of the Tax Court.
"On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit
The chief judge of the United States Tax Court, an Article I court composed
of 19 judges appointed by the President, . . ."
Freytag v. Commissioner, KTC 1991-1 (S.Ct. 1991)
Other Courts have recognized that the tax Court is a Court created
by Congress under its power to do so under Article I, Section 8.
So Dale, real simple question:
Considering the above citations, the Tax Court is a Court
formed by Congress under its authority in Article I, Sec 8.
True or False.
Would you trust anyone that can make such an easy error. Dale
put away your comic book and actually READ the U.S. Constitution,
you would already have known this, and known that the Tax Court
IS a Title I COURT. It is not a board or any other lesser entity as
Congress saw the need for a Court that had greater power over
tax law than the Tax Court's predecessor entity.
--
Richard A. Macdonald. CPA/EA
SSG (Ret), USA, ADA 16P34
"Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!!"
Shyster1040
If I feel ambitious, I'll engage with you on some of your other lies
of ignorance or malfeasance and add that to your page.
""
Then:
(a) you really are a sicko - I suppose you dress up in your mommie's old
undies and spank the monkey while re-reading my mistakes; and
(b) there's no need to maintain a separate website for your mistakes
because this site is sufficient - everything you've posted here is wrong
(including your attempts to point out my errors - as I mention, while you
pointed out that I had not properly construed the withholding agent issue,
you failed to grasp that the reason for the error was the failure to apply
the presumption rules - under those rules, if the payor had been required
to presume that the payee was foreign (as in the case where payment is to
be made to a foreign account), then the payor would have had custody of an
item of income of a foreign person, and would have been required to
withhold in the absence of reliable documentation - i.e., a complete W-9.
Thus, while pointing out my own error, you also succeeded in making your
own error - unlike mathematics, two errors do not make for a correct
answer.
AllYou!
>
>
> Shyster1040 wrote:
>
>> BTW, how many other of my posts have you fetishistically collected and
>> devoted an entire webpage to? That's really sick.
>
> Just the one where you are clearly and provably wrong.
So your web page must contain the evidence of where you're wrong about being
forced into tax court, right.
AllYou!
"Shyster1040" <Shyst...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e7761c03b859a47...@localhost.talkabouttaxes.com...
> ""Just the one where you are clearly and provably wrong.
>
> If I feel ambitious, I'll engage with you on some of your other lies
> of ignorance or malfeasance and add that to your page.
>
> ""
>
> Then:
>
> (a) you really are a sicko - I suppose you dress up in your mommie's old
> undies and spank the monkey while re-reading my mistakes; and
Ouch!
Shyster1040
being
forced into tax court, right.""
Who's wrong about being forced into Tax Court? As I read the Code, you
can't be forced into Tax Court to litigate your tax issues; you can only
be forced into Tax Court as a witness under subpoena. To my mind,
compulsory attendance as a witness still constitutes being forced into Tax
Court. It is also a further indicator that the Tax Court is a "court"
exercising judicial power because it possesses (a) the power of subpoena,
that is, compulsory process, and (b) the power to punish contempt; powers
that every other court of record generally possesses.
AllYou!
Which is why my comment above was directed at Dale. He was wrong to claim that
he could not be forced into tax court, and so it must be on his web page.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote
> Which is why my comment above was directed
> at Dale. He was wrong to claim that he could
> not be forced into tax court, and so it must be
> on his web page.
You're so full of shit you make a stock yard smell like a rose garden.
--
Paul Thomas, CPA
paultho...@bellsouth.net
Shyster1040
-Cheers
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> ""Just the one where you are clearly and provably wrong.
>
> If I feel ambitious, I'll engage with you on some of your other lies
> of ignorance or malfeasance and add that to your page.
>
> ""
>
> Then:
>
> (a) you really are a sicko - I suppose you dress up in your mommie's old
> undies and spank the monkey while re-reading my mistakes; and
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/shyster.html
Like I said, "IF I feel ambitious." But then with you posting stuff
like you just did in (a), there's not much to discuss with you, is there.
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> you can only
> be forced into Tax Court as a witness under subpoena.
Until you produce a subpoena I CAN NOT BE FORCE INTO TAX COURT.
Tax court has no more bearing on me than a Moscow ordinance against
jaywalking. Unless I jaywalk in Moscow, it is meaning less. Unless I
petition the Board of Tax Appeals, er tax court. Tax court has NO
jurisdiction or authority over me.
Now where is this subpoena with my name on it?
Shyster1040
your penchant for launching ad hominem attacks without provocation (no,
disagreement does not equal provocation), you have nothing to complain of
Dale - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Shyster1040
to you, you just don't get it.
You never asked whether you could ignore a Tax Court subpoena that you had
in hand, you stated that you were going to ignore the Tax Court until
someone could prove that you could be forced into Tax Court. That I did -
you can, as a technical matter, be forced into Tax Court by means of a
subpoena from that court. Asked and answered. Now stop being such a boob
and admit that you were wrong, because you were.
Dale Eastman
Cogent. LOL. That's funny coming from you. I looked at what you
actually wrote in your section (b).
Every time I start to think I can take you seriously and have a good
old honest debate, you post jaberwocky:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/shyster.html
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
Replacing the forgotten context:
SPECIFIC QUESTION: Mr. Macdonald, is the IRS required to follow
precedent of the Executive Hearing Board of Tax Appeals decisions, er
Tax Court decisions?
The IRS is not required to follow ANY Court decision
below that of the Supreme Court.
RMAC - 10/16/2005 2:49 PM
Then neither am I.
So having admitted that the tax court is meaningless, are you going to
continue posting tax court crap?
The default answer is yes.
Tax court crap is just that... CRAP.
Richard Macdonald
>
> Replacing the forgotten context:
> . . .
> SPECIFIC QUESTION: Mr. Macdonald, is the IRS required to follow precedent
> of the Executive Hearing Board of Tax Appeals decisions, er Tax Court
> decisions?
> Tax court crap is just that... CRAP.
Translation: Dale cannot defend or support his assertions:
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:x5S3f.1292$hY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>120 T.C. No. 10
>UNITED STATES TAX COURT
>
>Is not a court.
Dale Eastman has asserted that the US Tax Court
is not a court, so let us see if he is correct.
US Constitution, Article III, Section 1.
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish."
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power . . .
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;"
26 USC 7441. STATUS
There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the
United States, a court of record to be known as the United States
Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge
and the judges of the Tax Court.
Congress has enacted legislation under their specified power
in Article I of the US Constitution to create courts lesser than
Dave Johnson
> SPECIFIC QUESTION: Mr. Macdonald, is the IRS required to follow precedent
> of the Executive Hearing Board of Tax Appeals decisions, er Tax Court
> decisions?
> . . .
> Tax court crap is just that... CRAP.
Translation: Dale cannot defend or support his assertions:
>> "Shyster1040"
>> You never asked whether you could ignore a Tax Court subpoena that you had
in hand, you stated that you were going to ignore the Tax Court until
someone could prove that you could be forced into Tax Court. That I
did -
you can, as a technical matter, be forced into Tax Court by means of a
subpoena from that court. Asked and answered. Now stop being such a
boob
and admit that you were wrong, because you were.
add'l translation: dale is crap
Shyster1040
good
old honest debate, you post jaberwocky:"
Dale, there is nothing to debate with you; you have been flat-out wrong on
everything you've said here. As will be set out in greater detail later:
(a) you don't understand Section 861 and the regs thereunder, and your
"position" on them is totally incoherent and wrong;
(b) you don't understand what the difference was between direct and
indirect taxes under the Constitution, either before or after the 16th
Amendment;
(c) you don't understand that, even after the Pollock decision, an income
tax on wages was a perfectly acceptable indirect tax, in the nature of an
excise tax, and that the inevitable result of the Pollock decision, had it
not been undone by the 16th Amendment, would be that the only people who
would be taxed in the US would be people who worked for wages - the
regular Americans you claim you're most interested in helping;
(d) you don't understand the difference between taxation and involuntary
servitude, or the fact that conflating the two is an act of obscene
disrespect for those people who suffered under slavery;
(e) you don't understand the difference between income from the sale of an
asset and income from the performance of services (i.e., wages); and that,
even assuming arguendo that wages can be analysed in the same way as
selling property, since you didn't pay anything for the labor you have,
you have no cost basis to deduct from the gross wages you receive, with
the result that the entire amount is "income" under both the Constitution
and the IRC;
(f) you don't understand that the Tax Court is a "court," in the full
sense of the term, that it is a perfectly constitutional "legislative
court" created under Article I, and that, just like any other court of
limited jurisdiction under Article III, it has full judicial powers within
the jurisdiction granted to it by Congress;
(g) you don't understand the difference between treating the holding of a
case as binding precedent or as controlling legal authority, nor what the
doctrine of res judicata is and its effect on a party against whom it can
be asserted; and
(h) you don't understand the withholding regulations under Section 1441
and the effect of the presumptions that a payor must apply in the absence
of reliable documentation, and that, depending on which presumption
applies, a payor can be a "withholding agent" even where the payee is a
U.S. person if reliable documentation is not provided.
I'm quite sure that the foregoing is only a small list of those things
that you obviously do not understand given the statements you've posted on
this website. Furthermore, since you are singularly incapable of
admitting your errors, even when they have been abundantly pointed out to
you, preferring instead to engage in ad hominem attacks, it is impossible
to have anything even faintly resembling a debate with you.
Shyster1040
re-stated, is in error in that it assumes that treating a case as not
binding is the equivalent of treating it as non-existent. The IRS most
certainly does not disregard prior cases, from the Tax Court or any other
case, because the IRS understands (rather, IRS counsel understands) that a
prior case from any court, including the Tax Court, is a very good
indicator of what the law is and of how any subsequent case with
sufficiently similar facts and issues will turn out. For that reason, the
IRS does apply prior cases to other taxpayers to the extent that IRS
counsel determines that the Tax Court (or any other court) is likely to do
so if the taxpayer chooses to litigate. This is, as a general summary,
the IRS' position as stated on its website concerning its Action on
Decision (AOD) program.
Thus, just as you would be fool-hardy to think you can disregard a valid
case from a state court in the state you live in concerning whether or not
a particular activity is, or is not, a tort, you are just as fool-hardy in
thinking that the Tax Court's cases have no relevance to you - in either
instance, the the prior case is a statement about what the law is, and is
likely to be applied in future cases unless distinguished or overruled.
Even where the prior case is not controlling authority for the court
hearing a future case, such prior case is likely to be considered for its
persuasive value - that's often how evolving doctrine in common-law tort
matters moves from state to state; a court in one state renders a decision
creating a new tort, and, to the extent that such court's reasoning is
presuasive, a court in another state will often pick it up (or else
explain why it is inapplicable), thus incorporating the new tort into the
second state's law.
The basic point is, Dale, you don't even understand the basic abc's of the
common-law or the effect of precedent.
Richard Macdonald
(i) Dale does not understand that statutes control regulations
and that regulations cannot control statutes. Of course if he did
understand this, then he would not be able to make his Section
861 arguments.
AllYou!
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7cb6f.88$9v3...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
AllYou!
>
>
> Shyster1040 wrote:
>
>
>> you can only
>> be forced into Tax Court as a witness under subpoena.
>
>
>
> Until you produce a subpoena I CAN NOT BE FORCE INTO TAX COURT.
so you admit that you were wrong.
Dale Eastman
Richard Macdonald wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6aj6f.201$A63...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Replacing the forgotten context:
>>. . .
>>SPECIFIC QUESTION: Mr. Macdonald, is the IRS required to follow precedent
>>of the Executive Hearing Board of Tax Appeals decisions, er Tax Court
>>decisions?
>>. . .
>>Tax court crap is just that... CRAP.
>
>
> Translation: Dale cannot defend or support his assertions:
Quote:
The IRS is not required to follow ANY Court
decision below that of the Supreme Court.
RMAC - 10/16/2005 2:49 PM
--
Richard Macdonald
>
> > Richard Macdonald wrote:
>
>> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6aj6f.201$A63...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Replacing the forgotten context:
>>>. . .
>>>SPECIFIC QUESTION: Mr. Macdonald, is the IRS required to follow precedent
>>>of the Executive Hearing Board of Tax Appeals decisions, er Tax Court
>>>decisions?
>>>. . .
>>>Tax court crap is just that... CRAP.
>>
>> Translation: Dale cannot defend or support his assertions:
>
> Quote:
>
> The IRS is not required to follow ANY Court
> decision below that of the Supreme Court.
> RMAC - 10/16/2005 2:49 PM
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:x5S3f.1292$hY6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>120 T.C. No. 10
>UNITED STATES TAX COURT
>
>Is not a court.
Dale Eastman has asserted that the US Tax Court
is not a court, so let us see if he is correct.
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power . . .
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;"
Congress has the specific power to create courts inferior to the Supreme
Court.
26 USC 7441. STATUS
There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the
United States, a court of record to be known as the United States
Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge
and the judges of the Tax Court.
Congress has enacted legislation under their specified power
to create courts lesser than the Supreme Court in their creation
of the Tax Court.
"On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit
The chief judge of the United States Tax Court, an Article I court composed
of 19 judges appointed by the President, . . ."
Freytag v. Commissioner, KTC 1991-1 (S.Ct. 1991)
The Supreme Court has recognized that the Tax Court is a Court created
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> Dale sez: "Every time I start to think I can take you seriously and have a
> good old honest debate, you post jaberwocky:"
>
> Dale, there is nothing to debate with you; you have been flat-out wrong on
> everything you've said here. As will be set out in greater detail later:
>
> (a) you don't understand Section 861 and the regs thereunder, and your
> "position" on them is totally incoherent and wrong;
Unsubstantiated assertion. An assertion without proof may be refuted
without proof: You are wrong.
> (b) you don't understand what the difference was between direct and
> indirect taxes under the Constitution, either before or after the 16th
> Amendment;
Unsubstantiated assertion. An assertion without proof may be refuted
without proof: You are wrong.
Nevertheless, here's the proof:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/direct.html
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/excise.html
> (c) you don't understand that, even after the Pollock decision, an income
> tax on wages was a perfectly acceptable indirect tax, in the nature of an
> excise tax, and that the inevitable result of the Pollock decision, had it
> not been undone by the 16th Amendment, would be that the only people who
> would be taxed in the US would be people who worked for wages - the
> regular Americans you claim you're most interested in helping;
Unsubstantiated assertion. An assertion without proof may be refuted
without proof: You are wrong.
Nevertheless, here's the proof:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
> (d) you don't understand the difference between taxation and involuntary
> servitude, or the fact that conflating the two is an act of obscene
> disrespect for those people who suffered under slavery;
Unsubstantiated assertion. An assertion without proof may be refuted
without proof: You are wrong.
Nevertheless in this case, the proof of your error is already posted:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a3214667ac32685b?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/c30cedeeca198028?hl=en
> (e) you don't understand the difference between income from the sale of an
> asset and income from the performance of services (i.e., wages); and that,
> even assuming arguendo that wages can be analysed in the same way as
> selling property, since you didn't pay anything for the labor you have,
> you have no cost basis to deduct from the gross wages you receive, with
> the result that the entire amount is "income" under both the Constitution
> and the IRC;
Unsubstantiated assertion. An assertion without proof may be refuted
without proof: You are wrong.
Nevertheless, Refutation of your incorrect assertions regarding
Constitutional Income is here:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
> (f) you don't understand that the Tax Court is a "court," in the full
> sense of the term, that it is a perfectly constitutional "legislative
> court" created under Article I, and that, just like any other court of
> limited jurisdiction under Article III, it has full judicial powers within
> the jurisdiction granted to it by Congress;
KEY WORDS: "within the jurisdiction granted to it by Congress".
I am not a "TAXPAYER":
The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any
internal revenue tax.
I am not a "TAXPAYER" because I do NOT elect to do business in the
corporate form, nor have I invested personal property in a corporation
where I would make "INCOME" from corporate activities.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html
and
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/page2580.html
> (g) you don't understand the difference between treating the holding of a
> case as binding precedent or as controlling legal authority, nor what the
> doctrine of res judicata is and its effect on a party against whom it can
> be asserted; and
The Board of Tax Appeals, er, Tax Court only has jurisdiction on my
"income" if I appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals, er, if I appeal to
the Tax Court.
Quote:
The IRS is not required to follow ANY Court
decision below that of the Supreme Court.
RMAC - 10/16/2005 2:49 PM
Then neither am I.
> (h) you don't understand the withholding regulations under Section 1441
> and the effect of the presumptions that a payor must apply in the absence
> of reliable documentation, and that, depending on which presumption
> applies, a payor can be a "withholding agent" even where the payee is a
> U.S. person if reliable documentation is not provided.
You are provably wrong.
(b)(3)(iii) Presumption of U.S. or foreign status.
A payment that the withholding agent cannot reliably
associate with documentation is presumed to be made
to a U.S. person, except as otherwise provided in
this paragraph (b)(3)(iii), in paragraphs (b)(3)(iv)
and (v) of this section, or in Sec. 1.1441-5 (d) or
(e).
(b) General rules of withholding.
(3) Presumptions regarding payee's status in the
absence of documentation.
(iii) Presumption of U.S. or foreign status.
(A) Payments to exempt recipients.
(B) Scholarships and grants.
(C) Pensions, annuities, etc.
(D) Certain payments to offshore accounts.
(iv) Grace period.
(v) Special rules applicable to payments to foreign
intermediaries.
Sec. 1.1441-5 Withholding on payments to
partnerships, trusts, and estates.
Let me cut that cow out of the herd:
A payment that the withholding agent cannot reliably
associate with documentation is presumed to be made
to a U.S. person...
1.1441-1(b)(3)(iii)
And don't forget this little bit of logic:
Sec. 1.1441-7 General provisions relating to
withholding agents.
(a) Withholding agent defined--
(1) In general.
For purposes of chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue
Code and the regulations under such chapter, the term
withholding agent means any person, U.S. or foreign,
that has the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or
payment of an item of income of a foreign person
subject to withholding,...
If ANY person "has the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment
of an item of income" that belongs to you, and you are NOT a foreign
person, then that other person IS NOT a withholding agent. If that
person IS NOT a withholding agent, then that person IS NOT "required
to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441,
1442, 1443, or 1461."
If you are NOT a foreign person, the person paying you is NOT a
withholding agent.
If you are NOT a foreign person, the withholding rules of 1441, 1442,
1443 & 1461 DO NOT APPLY.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/shyster.html and
http://home.sprintmail.com/%7Edalereastman/tax/backup.html
> I'm quite sure that the foregoing is only a small list of those things
> that you obviously do not understand given the statements you've posted on
> this website. Furthermore, since you are singularly incapable of
> admitting your errors, even when they have been abundantly pointed out to
> you, preferring instead to engage in ad hominem attacks, it is impossible
> to have anything even faintly resembling a debate with you.
Uh huh.
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> Unsubstantiated, my ass.
>
> As I have repeatedly demonstrated to you,
What you have repeatedly demonstrated like this?
-QUOTE-
Then:
(a) you really are a sicko - I suppose you dress up
in your mommie's old undies and spank the monkey
while re-reading my mistakes; and
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/76610893d42e48e8?hl=en
-END QUOTE-
And I do love the Irony...
-QUOTE-
Given that you can't hold a cogent discussion in the
first place, and given your penchant for launching ad
hominem attacks without provocation (no, disagreement
does not equal provocation), you have nothing to
complain of Dale - sauce for the goose is sauce for
the gander.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/bcc30fdf4e7b8ff2?hl=en
-END QUOTE-
AllYou!
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> Merely a statement of the truth, sicko.
And this proves exactly what?
What point of tax and law logic did you just make?
NONE!
You know, you might have had something worth discussing, but you write
your posts deliberately so that it never gets discussed.
One must wonder why that is.
Shyster1040
point, that anyone is impressed, or fooled, by your attempt to evade the
truth - that you're a complete idiot who doesn't know the first thing
about how to read or interpret caselaw - by quoting a rhetorical aside out
of context and then responding to it as if it were the entire argument?
To restate, in summary form, the arguments you refuse to face:
(a) "Supra," when used in a judicial opinion following a truncated case
citation, is a cross-reference telling the reader that the full citation
can be found in the previous text. It does not mean that the case to
which it is appended is "superior" or that it "transcends" anything.
On your webpage devoted to "proving" that only corporations can have
"income" under the Constitution, you have interpreted "supra" to mean that
the Supreme Court is giving controlling authority to the case as to which
it has appended "supra" in its opinion. Since "supra" clearly does not
have that meaning when used in the manner the Court used it, you clearly
do not understand how that term is used in legal writing.
It is up to you to prove otherwise.
(b) The very same Supreme Court session that rendered the decision in
Merchant's Loan & Trust v. Smietanka - the case that you cite for the
proposition that the term "income" can only mean the gains derived by
corporations from capital, labor, or both combined - also applied the very
same definition of "income" in two companion cases involving individuals
(that is, non-corporate natural persons) as it applied in Merchant's Loan
& Trust, and it did so with explicit cross-reference to Merchant's. Those
cases were Walsh v. Brewster, 255 U.S. 536 (1921) and Goodrich v. Edwards,
255 U.S. 527 (1921).
From this it follows, as the subsequent discussion I provided showed by
explicit analysis of the same cases you attempted to "analyze" on that
same webpage of yours, that the definition of "income" as adopted by the
Court in Merchant's does not mean that only the gains derived by
corporations are "income" in the Constitutional sense - any person,
corporate or non-corporate, who derives gains from the use of capital,
labor, or both combined, including profits from the sale of capital assets
(see Eisner v. Macomber), has "income" in the Constitutional sense. Thus,
it follows that the wages of ordinary Americans are "income" and taxable
as such.
Since you have claimed otherwise, you clearly do not understand the
meaning or effect of the cases you attempted to "analyze" and thus you
clearly do not understand what the term "income" means under the
Constitution. It is up to you to prove otherwise.
In either case, you prove nothing, other than your continuing duplicity
and ignorance, by pretending to all and sundry that the out-of-context
quote you present was the sum total of my argument.
To update an old saw - there are lies, damned lies, statistics, and
out-of-context quotation, and of this last (and worst) vice, you suffer in
full measure.
Dale Eastman
Shyster1040 wrote:
> you're a complete idiot who doesn't know the first thing
Yawn.
If you want to be taken serious, I suggest you quit the puerile name
calling.
Shyster1040
following questions have been asked, and you have yet to answer them:
(1) What is the difference between res judicata and stare decisis, and how
do they apply differently to private litigants and government agencies?
(2) How is the word "supra" to be interpreted when used in a judicial
opinion directly following the truncated citation to another case?
(3) How is it that "income" means only the gains derived by corporations
from capital, labor, or both, given that the exact same Court that decided
Merchant's Loan & Trust v. Smietanka also applied the exact same
definition of "income" they used in that case to individuals (i.e.,
natural persons) in the cases Walsh v. Brewster and Goodrich v. Edwards?
And, no, the claims you make on your website, for example at
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/income60.html, are not sufficient
because I have already refuted them in other posting made this day - thus,
a link to such website will not suffice; doing nothing more than providing
such a link will be a concession of defeat on your part.
AllYou!
>
>
> Shyster1040 wrote:
>
>> you're a complete idiot who doesn't know the first thing
>
> Yawn.
>
> If you want to be taken serious, I suggest you quit the puerile name calling.
LOL! You and your arguments and your debating tactics are what can't be taken
seriously. Shyster1040 has proven to you where, once again, you don't know what
the hell you're talking about, and so because you simply cannot dispute him, you
snip the argument entirely.
How many lurkers did you convince by this response?