Where exactly are your historical facts?
What fact do you have to show that a corportation formed in any of the 50 states is a "foreign" corporation? Please cite something other than your usual BS..
Meanwhile. You still have NOT dealt with the law as written. Your refusal to deal with the law is a fact that is becoming historic.
True to my word I put down my duster to checkout:
Parados (remember him?) wrote, "Where exactly are your historical facts?"
Followed by:
"Your refusal to deal with the law is a fact that is becoming historic."
Very well written; I may use it as a tag line.
Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good guy is like expecting a bull not to charge because you are a vegetarian.
Does the term "United States" have multiple legal meanings and, if so, what are they?
Yes, the term has several meanings. The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution. See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
This is the very same definition that is found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The second of these three meanings refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is legislating in its municipal capacity. For example, Congress is legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service.
BREAKING NEWS:
It is terribly revealing that the definition of "United States" has been removed from the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary.
Another example of changing the law without going through due process.
In the next edition we learn how to save $1000 dollars fighting the IRSÂ… Hire a cheaper attorney.
Oh! We also get around to answering one of Parados's questionsÂ…I can't wait!
I hazard it will be 10 years and you still won't have addressed the code itself.
Your conclusion dear Parados is the place where you got tired of thinking; and that's the problem with the gene pool there is no lifeguard.
Have you not realized that all the big hitters who punch above their weight (and I don't include Set) have left in agreement. You are the last holdout! A collective sigh goes round the building every time you reply. Let it go; let this thread die!
Ab absurdo acta est fabula.
Sorry I havent been in the conversation.. just got back from the Amish country...
Ive got a question for you Parados... does your occupation involve anything to do with accounting or taxes? Just curious because one of the guys in my lodge is an auditor for some big companies and he told me awhile ago that its generally understood that there is no actual income tax law - but its never made an issue because of the coerciveness of the IRS and such.....
There is a court determination that seems to contradict some of my beliefs on the law; however my main suspicion on this whole matter seems to be the IRS's unwillingness to come foward and show the law.. I havent looked up cryer's case to see if its written there.. but even on video that Ive seen the question is clearly ducked by everson, Olson, and that other dykish bitch they got working for them.. So you have to admit they have helped make it the murky issue that it is.
That being said I would almost think it a patriotic act to pay income taxes if they actually got used to pay off debt or whatever.. but knowing that they go for no good thing other than financing the federal reserve it makes me irate beyond belief
Show up at a news conference and ask someone in law enforcement to cite the law that prevents theft. I will bet you they can't cite the entire law. It in no way means the law doesn't exist. For that matter write your local sheriff and ask him to tell you the law. I bet he has better things to do then answer your question. Does that mean you can steal anything you want since he refused to answer your question? Try it and see how far you get.
Any judge will tell you, if you don't understand the law then hire an attorney. It is not the job of law enforcement to tell you what the laws are. It is not the job of the IRS to cite basic tax law. If you have a question hire an attorney. There is nothing in the law that says it doesn't exist if the IRS doesn't tell you it does. There is no precedent that laws can't be enforced unless the government answers all your stupid questions about the law.
parados wrote:Show up at a news conference and ask someone in law enforcement to cite the law that prevents theft. I will bet you they can't cite the entire law. It in no way means the law doesn't exist. For that matter write your local sheriff and ask him to tell you the law. I bet he has better things to do then answer your question. Does that mean you can steal anything you want since he refused to answer your question? Try it and see how far you get.
Any judge will tell you, if you don't understand the law then hire an attorney. It is not the job of law enforcement to tell you what the laws are. It is not the job of the IRS to cite basic tax law. If you have a question hire an attorney. There is nothing in the law that says it doesn't exist if the IRS doesn't tell you it does. There is no precedent that laws can't be enforced unless the government answers all your stupid questions about the law.
It may not be their job to cite law per se.. but on the other hand they purposely ducking the question when asked by a reporter for example seems suspect. Its not just once in awhile but everytime. Im sure youve seen that video of Mark Everson.. he's asked the question and he answers everything else under the sun except what statute requires people to pay. Same thing with nina olson.. I mean these people are experts and they cannot seem to answer what should be a very simply question.
Any normal person is going to start thinking that something is fishy. I mean they answer questions like politicians do.. and we all know politicians lie....my guess is so is the IRS.
I cited the exact parts of the law..
You have not addressed them. The IRS could cite and you would respond the same way you are now.. You refuse to see what his shown to you.
Refute the law or admit you are ducking responding to where it was shown to you. You can't refute it. You dodge it and come back with the same argument again and again that you haven't seen it.
You HAVE been shown the law. Any argument that you haven't or the IRS hasn't shown it is nothing but an attempt on your part to pretend the law doesn't exist. You might want to try reality some time instead of this outlandish fantasy world you think exists.
parados wrote:I cited the exact parts of the law..
You have not addressed them. The IRS could cite and you would respond the same way you are now.. You refuse to see what his shown to you.
Refute the law or admit you are ducking responding to where it was shown to you. You can't refute it. You dodge it and come back with the same argument again and again that you haven't seen it.
You HAVE been shown the law. Any argument that you haven't or the IRS hasn't shown it is nothing but an attempt on your part to pretend the law doesn't exist. You might want to try reality some time instead of this outlandish fantasy world you think exists.
You are missing the point.. I dont want YOU to cite the law. I want THEM to cite the law.. There is a lot of controversy over this law.. alot of vagueness. The IRS should be able to point it out if not clarify it. There are some arguments about definitions of certain terms ,etc.. The word income not even being defined in the entire IRS code.. So I dont think it is too much for them to spell it out. Yet they choose not too. All I ask is why not?
It seems like such an easy thing to do yet the IRS ignores it, politicians ignore it. A request to petitition the government for a precise explanation goes unanswered and so now there is going to have to be a Supreme Court case to explain just exactly what it means to petition the government for a redress of grievances... This is an awful lot of trouble to go through for the government if this was as simple as just pointing to 26.1 dont you think?
Gee...
So the law exists but you feel until the IRS points to it you don't have to believe the law?
If the IRS points to specifics in the law then idiots will claim the rest of the law doesn't matter since the IRS didn't point to it.
You are doing nothing but playing games while avoiding dealing with the law itself. You have been shown where you are required to pay taxes. The IRS lists the same things. They say the date you have to file your taxes. They say who has to file. They print the tax tables cited in the law. Yet in spite of the fact that every one of the specifics I pointed out can be found in the IRS forms and guides you want to claim they don't answer your question. This isn't about the IRS refusing to answer your question. This is about you acting like a 2 year old and not believing the answer.
The term income not being defined? What kind of nonsense is that?
The tax is based on "taxable income" which is defined. Taxable income is based on gross income which is defined..
Quote:(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
Please tell us what part of this definition confuses you. The majority of the definition of "gross income" doesn't use the word "income". Cite the "income" that you are confused about and we will see if it is in the definition or not and if it even needs "income" defined to tell it if it part of "gross income".
parados wrote:The term income not being defined? What kind of nonsense is that?
The tax is based on "taxable income" which is defined. Taxable income is based on gross income which is defined..
Quote:(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
Please tell us what part of this definition confuses you. The majority of the definition of "gross income" doesn't use the word "income". Cite the "income" that you are confused about and we will see if it is in the definition or not and if it even needs "income" defined to tell it if it part of "gross income".
The word "Income" is never defined in the law. If it is true that the SCOTUS rulings have defined "income" as corporate profit then that is suspicious.. The tax code defines everything under the sun; why skip the one things it purportedly taxes?
Perhaps Im wrong on all of this OR as I believe you (along with countless millions of others) have been duped by one of the biggest scams in our country's history.
The tax is based not on income but on "taxable income"
"Taxable income" is defined as "gross income" less deductions
"Gross income" is defined as above. There is no reason to define "income" since it is not the basis for the tax.
Because the law doesn't define "income" doesn't make "gross income" disappear.
Your argument is nothing but a dodge. It avoids what the law says and tries to make an argument where there is none. Please show me where you think the law requires a tax on "income" without any definition related to what the law says. Your argument will end up being arcane and limited to such a small area that it will be meaningless in respect to "incomes" of normal people.
Stop avoiding the law and stop making up stuff that isn't in the law. You demand the the IRS show you specifics but then you just avoid dealing with the law at all. You are not trying to have an intelligent discussion about facts. You are trying to twist reality to meet your fantasy.
"just got back from the Amish country"
What took you so long did the cart breakdown, or the horse go lame?
Richard wrote,
"The word "Income" is never defined in the law""When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the
people fear the government, you have tyranny."Is the term "income" defined in the IRC and, if not, where is it defined?The historical fraud that is the foreign owned FED.
Meanwhile.. lets ignore the law that you say is the problem..
The problem is you can't show me what you think is in the law nor can you answer when I point out what is actually in the law.
Show me where the law states there is an "income tax". The law imposes a tax on taxable income. "taxable income" is defined in the law.
parados wrote:Meanwhile.. lets ignore the law that you say is the problem..
The problem is you can't show me what you think is in the law nor can you answer when I point out what is actually in the law.
Show me where the law states there is an "income tax". The law imposes a tax on taxable income. "taxable income" is defined in the law.
Again, if it were that simple, the IRS would say so.. The fact that theyre mum on this shows me theres something fishy.
We could go on arguing the vagueness of the laws all day. The IRS is going through a lot of trouble to just not show people the laws which require them to pay...
parados wrote:The tax is based not on income but on "taxable income"
"Taxable income" is defined as "gross income" less deductions
"Gross income" is defined as above. There is no reason to define "income" since it is not the basis for the tax.
Because the law doesn't define "income" doesn't make "gross income" disappear.
Your argument is nothing but a dodge. It avoids what the law says and tries to make an argument where there is none. Please show me where you think the law requires a tax on "income" without any definition related to what the law says. Your argument will end up being arcane and limited to such a small area that it will be meaningless in respect to "incomes" of normal people.
Stop avoiding the law and stop making up stuff that isn't in the law. You demand the the IRS show you specifics but then you just avoid dealing with the law at all. You are not trying to have an intelligent discussion about facts. You are trying to twist reality to meet your fantasy.
Are you an IRS agent or something? Your staunch support for the IRS seems more emotional than an ordinary citizen...
Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:Meanwhile.. lets ignore the law that you say is the problem..
The problem is you can't show me what you think is in the law nor can you answer when I point out what is actually in the law.
Show me where the law states there is an "income tax". The law imposes a tax on taxable income. "taxable income" is defined in the law.
Again, if it were that simple, the IRS would say so.. The fact that theyre mum on this shows me theres something fishy.
We could go on arguing the vagueness of the laws all day. The IRS is going through a lot of trouble to just not show people the laws which require them to pay...
The fact that you refuse to discuss the law says there is something fishy..
The fact that when I point out the specific problems with your argument you change the topic says there is something fishy...
The fact that you say the IRS is "mum" when the IRS prints all kinds of brochures and documents that answer all kinds of specific questions is fishy...
Your argument stinks to high heaven.
Richard Saunders wrote:
Are you an IRS agent or something? Your staunch support for the IRS seems more emotional than an ordinary citizen...
Sometimes all idiots can understand is emotion. You certainly can't reason with them because they have no reasoning capability.
If I were to claim to be an IRS agent would you drop your argument that the IRS has never pointed out the law to you?
Richard quite properly wrote, "Are you an IRS agent or something? Your staunch support for the IRS seems more emotional than an ordinary citizen..."
If you ask me; more likely a commie with a degree from Moscow state in statistics.
I kid you not we are still laughing over a post he made in which he tried to sell the fact that you are 3000% more likely to be attacked if you are carrying a concealed weapon.
Fact and he are total strangers.
