stija
Forum Replies Created
I just read a few SCOTUS opinions….I noticed that the court uses terms ‘state’ and ‘State’ without clear discrimination. I could not tell the difference why they use one over the other, not did I catch an legal principles or theories that they use with the words that would help me ascertain what ‘states’ are in question.
Therefore, does anyone know the difference in ‘state’ and ‘State’ in SCOTUS opinions? And I mean that they use the two terms in the same opinion interchangeably……so that is what confuses me.
Thanks for any help or suggestions.
FRIVOLOUS!
I can agree with everything he says. It just boils down to the basic context you use the terms direct and indirect.
If it is in the context of individual, then it falls in the indirect or excise taxes – two taxes, direct and indirect, and two ways of collection only, either by apportionment or by uniformity.
If it is analyzed in relation to the United States, it is a direct tax on income (public office, officer, the taxpayer) not subject to apportionment either, which is why it is called INTERNAL revenue code. In this capacity the United States govt is definitely operating in a 4:3:2 capacity.
But i would never want to discuss this great detail of this tax in court. How many people do you guys think understand this as well as we do?? How many care to even look it up and learn?
Most people are convinced that Congress copyrighted employment and anyone employed anywhere owes them a cut, or what they call a tax. It is really nothing but a debt obligation that one can enter into voluntarily; either through contracting with United States directly, or volunteering one’s own property to be converted and treated as public property for the purposes of SS benefits and participation.
And that is just the employment and private employment subpart of it. But that is how it operates with most Americans. Now this needs to be reverse-engineered for a lazy and apathetic audience, which will most likely look for a natural defense mechanism to dismiss it as crazy and impossible.
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
[Winston ChurchillWell i think we hammered it down pretty good.
I now understand the following:
1. IRC is the greatest tax scheme that we will ever get, if you truly understand it
2. States of the union are the greatest tax havens in the world, especially Delaware pursuant to Corporate Code Title 8 Section 390.
My mission now is to spread the word. Explain it to the masses. I wish i had the control of public media, it would be ALOT easier.
In re to Bing’s resident comments.
We’ve just had another discussion about the income tax and it is my understanding that resident under the income tax laws of the states’ employs the same trick as Congress does with residents under the irc; namely resident does not refer to an actual human resident but ONLY in relation to public offices or officers of corporations chartered/owned by the state.
The tax is not on humans but activities regulated by the state and offices/officers of corporate entities chartered by the state (gov’t).
Does that make sense Bing? If you don’t involve yourself with state gov’t or corporate activities, you are NOT the resident under income tax laws of the state, these laws having nothing to do with regulation of humans, but taxable resident activities/corporate entities (you may represent as an officer, at your discretion and consent).
Do you like the sedm materials? We certainly do. 🙂
It is quite irrelevant whether i like it. The question is if it is correct or wrong. I would say that it is correct and that i agree with it, from a legal perspective. However, in practice, real world interactions are another story. What i mean by this statement is that, for example, I would never attach a federal pleading attachment to my pleading, NOT because i disagree with it, BUT because it would prejudice me with the judge who would label me a nut, conspiracy theorist, sovereign citizen, tax protester and other things in the general class of the meaning of the preceding terms <_<
Therefore, I agree and cannot disprove any of it from a legal perspective. But the question that i would raise here is the following:
1. Do we want to be right and ignored? (and jailed sometimes), or
2. Do we want to be free and win?
It is a thin line to be walked between those two, I believe. We need to gauge (somehow) the interest and knowledge of the court into what we are bringing up, because if we expose too much:
1. The court will lose interest
2. The court wil label us as one of the nuts mentioned above
3. The court will rule against us, simply because:
3.1 Lack of inferior case law on what we say
3.2 Overwhelming amount of inferior case law contradicting what we say
3.3 The court finds it unbelievable, and thus crazy (see # 2 above)
3.4 The court has no vested interest in learning or caring about what we say, because of 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
…and i could go on. So….aside from what i said in this post, and to answer your question, i love the SEDM material. I wouldn’t be here learning and educating myself if i didn’t. But the time comes when i have to put it in practice, and in that context we need to discuss how to get what we want. Even if it means playing their game by admitting irrelevant things in order to get THROUGH to them. And i think that is what neo is trying to do.
Ultimately, in my humble opinion, it is not about being right or wrong, it is about being:
1. Recognized as a free man, and
2. Left alone
Therefore, lets start discussing HOW TO get that. To obtain my rights (liberty) i am prepared to do it by ANY means whatsoever, not simply by being right. Since we are on the same side here, i ask of you (all of you members) to come together and start “strategizing” a tactical way of attacking these issues in a manner that:
1. The courts will entertain
2. The courts will not find nutty and threatening
3. The courts will RECOGNIZE
4. The courts will give relief requested
Let’s do that please. I am tired of learning, my eyes hurt :wacko: I’m ready and itching for a “fight” :ph34r:
I agree with 1-10 and 12-13 fully, and partially with 11. (stop adding stuff because then i have to agree or disagree here and change my post :mad:)
How would you apply 11 to the public office of a federal judiciary sitting in a federal courthouse in Arizona (or any union state)?
The way i see it, the activities of the office are exercised in the union state but on U.S. authority (1:8 and 4:3:2), therefore it is still considered a “resident” office under the IRC and thus taxable. Therefore, I think you have to be careful when you say that activities have to be carried inside the United States (D.C.). Maybe we need to say “legally” carried out inside the United States, because these activities ARE legally carried out in United States (4 USC 72) but physically within the union state.
I do not think we have to prove it, except maybe for us here, so that we are 100% sure it is correct. I would never bring this up in court myself, and even if opposing counsel brought it up, i would avoid it as much as i could. The issues to be brought up in court are:
1. Connection with a trade or business?
2. Reportable transaction pursuant to IRC?
3. Private v. public (U.S. property)?
4. If private, voluntary agreement in place or not?
There is absolutely no need to discuss what kind of tax it is in a court of law. It is irrelevant, except for our discussion here so that WE understand it fully. How many judges do you think understand this as good as we understand it? More importantly, HOW MANY DO YOU THINK CARE to read up on it and learn? It is waaaay easier to classify us as tax protesters and get rid of us.
Let me see about cases….but the wording of the 16th Amendment really is all you would need:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Remember, this amendment authorized NOTHING new. It merely clarified the tax because of Pollock decision. Gov’t always had powers to “tax” themselves and their property, just like you can decide to tax yourself for whatever purposes. It is special law, as you said. In relation to people it is contractual in nature period. It is not a tax at all, as that term is legally defined.
In re 14….i think you are right from that perspective. However, i think they can call it both direct and indirect because of the context:
1. direct tax on income
2. indirect tax on source (activity/office)
That is what i think on direct v. indirect. This has nothing to do with people right? We agree on that. We also agreed that people are not the taxpayers, but the office (legal person/officer).
In re 6…..Admin just reiterates what i have been saying, that the UPRR was the taxpayer and was obligated to pay the tax and NOT Brushaber. Brushaber never had any liability or duty to do anything under IRC at the time. She also provides evidence to support it this time, therefore i am 100% convinced that UPRR was the taxpayer in that case.
In re 9….I change my stance. Admin has convinced me that the real domicile has nothing to do with this. That regulation is pretty clear on how it “treats” artificial entites as residents based on the activities and not the actual residence.
In re 12….They call it a dnat ON income here:
We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word ‘direct’ had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20] We come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the 16th Amendment.
So IT IS a dnat on income, but an excise on the source of that income. Context is everything. And we didn’t say it, SCOTUS did. The 16th Amendment says it also, if you think about it. But do NOT take it out of context, it is not a dnat on the source. Therefore, I can conclude the following:
1. It is a DNAT on income
2. It is an excise on the source (Constitutional context)
3. It is a contractual obligation on the human in any state of the union (not a tax at all, what admin calls EXTRA-constitutional)
Also, I think I was making a mistake, that neo probably makes too (correct me if I am wrong neo), by trying to contextualize and rationalize the IRC through the U.S. Constitution (sometimes only and without realizing it), when in fact the 16th Amendment is the one to use ONLY and NOT any other part of the U.S. Constitution. While 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 do authorize OTHER legislation in creating courts and judicial officers, the IRC is not legislated through authority of those Constitutional sections but ONLY 16th Amendment (along with direct and indirect tax restriction sections only). Right?
If i may contribute to this spirited discussion. Either one of you feel free to tell me how you think i am wrong. In fact, i encourage it.
In re: 1. I think admin was trying to say that you cannot receive payments in connection with a trade or business if you are retired and not holding public office. I agree with that. However, i also agree with neo that the payments are from sources within U.S. gov’t and thus in the same general class. And the fact that SSA law says that recipients of SS benefits are treated as federal personnel is enough for me to conclude that such benefits can be taxable, if Congress so decides. Congress can also exempt them explicitly if it chooses to. I don’t know which is the case because i don’t care about them since i am not participating in the ponzi scheme.
Therefore i agree with neo on 2, as well as 3, 4, 5, but not 6. Let’s talk about 6. My view is that no human domiciled in one of the union states can be legally a “taxpayer” because of constituional restrictions. However, that is not true of ppl domiciled in D.C. or abroad. Furthermore, i believe, in respect to us domiciled outside D.C. the taxpayer is the withholding agent, corporate office/officer (same thing really because officer is an official capacity whose domicile is that of the office*) and people domiciled in the union states (nra) do not have to do anything. Hence the voluntary assessment nature of the tax. If you do not assess yourself voluntarily, an assessment will be done on you by the taxpayer and the debt levying on your wages (which they control because it’s their property really).
While writing this something occurred to me…..if the corporate officer in his official capacity is legally domiciled in the same place where the office is, wouldn’t the public officer (federal judge and private citizen of California) be also domiciled in D.C., even though he is discharging his duties in California in federal court? In that case, such officer (public capacity) may be the taxpayer and required to file returns and pay the tax. I never thought about this before until now. I always saw the judge only in relation to their private capacity. If what i am thinking about is true, then a federal judge should not be allowed to file a w-8ben, even though a citizen of California with domicile within the state, because the forms are requested in connection with the conduct of a trade or business within United States in “his/her official capacity” and not as a private individual. Thus the only proper form would be a W-4. Opposite is true of NRA not engaged in federal public office, like for example having income from federal corporate stocks or dividends, such as Brushaber. Thoughts?
Point 8 is irrelevant. 9 is also pointless, but legally neo is right. One could choose a domicile in D.C. Have you ever been in Heaven admin??
In re to 10….if you work for a foreign or domestic corporation that is not a part of one of the three gov’t branches and not involved in essential gov’t business, then you have no taxable income. The corporation does not have to be private. So i agree with both of you.
In re to 11….i agree with both of you. It is a real gov’t but functions like a thief and a communist entity.
In re to 12….it is a DNAT on income, how the SCOTUS put it numerous times. It is not really what can legally be defined as a tax, at least not in relation to people. It is a franchise tax on the corporate privilege, but in relation to the people it is nothing more than a contractual obligation.
In re to 13….they can because they can. Gov’t can. Who is going to stop them?
Forgot the attachment.
This is in response to neo’s post…
All public officers are taxpayers, but not all taxpayers are public officers. The public officer is a single component of the “trade or business” franchise. Do you claim they are equivalent? If you do, you reject the entire position paper on the terms “includes” and “including.” Again . . . you can’t have it both ways.
Public offices are taxpayers, but not all taxpayers are public offices. Two examples of taxpayers who are not public offices are: a corporate officer required to make returns of income and withholding agents.
1. Brushaber was a private party who dabbled in federal privilege. He accrued income under his nonresident alien status. Because the 16th levied a DNAT on United States sourced income, he was liable. What’s so hard to understand about that?
2. Either you accept the 26 USC 7701(c ) definition of “includes” and “including” and subsequent SCOTUS rulings regarding their interpretation or you do not. Which is it?
3. If you do, then you agree that public office is only one component of the “trade or business” franchise. If you claim public office and a “trade or business” are synonymous, then you reject 2. above.
I disagree slightly with 1.
Brushaber was not liable, his income was subject to the tax and the corporate officer who withheld on him was liable. Brushaber filed suit to enjoin him from diminishing (what he thought was) his property (but was taxable income). I can say this another way, looked from a different perspective, that of Brushaber being liable and the taxpayer. In such instance, the corporation (not the taxpayer) would have paid him his full dividends in which case Brusahber (taxpayer) would have been required to file a return and pay tax under protest and then file an action to recover it. Or not file and not pay. Either proposition would lead to a different suit, against the IRS or collector and not the UPRR.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. The corporation (corporate officer most likely) withheld on his dividends, thus Brushaber sued the UPRR. To me this is clear proof that the corporation knew it was liable, and not Brushaber.
I agree fully with 2.
I agree with 3 too. For me to be convinced that U.S. sourced payments are not taxable, i need to see evidence saying that. Otherwise, even though i know the lack of evidence does not confer authority, i would lose in court not being able to provide anything to prove my point. But i can see Admin’s point on this too, because we all know that if the law does not say something we should not imply it. If Congress intended to include something, it should have. Otherwise, why only include the performance of public office, why not say every U.S. sourced payment is includible in “trade or business.”
Having said all of this, i still concede that U.S. Sourced payments can probably be included in the same general class as “public office”, so long they are paid in a furtherance of a de jure government activity. If it is simply a business enterprise, then i would disagree. 🙂 Playing both sides, but only because of the context in which the payment is made. If it is to same in the general class as the federal public office, it has to be a legitimate gov’t activity. Would you agree neo?
I think i understand the need to be congruent with what the lower courts say; i.e. that citizens (residents, nonresidents, irrelevant) are taxpayers. But that is not true and is a dangerous status to choose for oneself. It is also highly irrelevant to a legal discussion because one would argue about having taxable income and not being a taxpayer. There is no need to go there and even mention that you are/are not a taxpayer. It is the income that is subject to the tax, and having none absolves you from a liability, even if you claim to be a goat.
One more thing….i just noticed it last. Let me address Flint v. Stone Tracy.
Quote
“While the tax in this case, as we have construed the statute, is imposed upon the exercise of the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, as such business is done under authority of state franchises, it becomes necessary to consider in this connection the right of the Federal government to tax the activities of private corporations which arise from the exercise of franchises granted by the state in creating and conferring powers upon such corporations. We think it is the result of the cases heretofore decided in this court, that such business activities, though exercised because of state-created franchises, are not beyond the taxing power of the United States.”
[Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107 (1901)]
Where’s the beef?
I don’t recall exactly what the quote refers to, but based on my deductive logic and constitutional understanding, the only way Feds can tax state corporations is: 1) if the corporation is a business enterprise and not a legitimate state gov’t endeavour (part of executive, legislative, or judicial branch) and, 2) comity between state-feds for such tax or, 3) corporation doing business within Feds territorial jurisdiction, in which case there is no need for comity.
So, having said that, i welcome neo to: 1) correct me or 2) tell me i’m not only good looking. 😀
By the way, i don’t think i’ve ever understood this as good as i feel i do now.
I strongly disagree that Brushaber was a taxpayer. As it is pointed out, civil law cannot reach outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the legislating sovereign. Thus Brushaber was not a taxpayer but merely had income from domestic corporations that was taxable. If the corporation understood the laws and how to apply them, it would have withheld at the 30% rate, thus paying the tax itself (the taxpayer) and paid out the balance to Brushaber.
Brushaber cannot legitimately be a taxpayer. He can assume that status (illegitimately as a nonresident alien) but that does not make him into a legitimate taxpayer anymore than filing a resident return would have made him be a resident. Would the IRS allow such conduct?? Probably, but that does not make it legal or legitimate. If the goal is to play their game by their rules and win, than we can call ourselves taxpayers (dangerous). If the goal is the truth, then no private individual is a taxpayer.
I feel that when one involves themselves in a federal taxable activity, whether it involves a corporate privilege or public office, the private individual involved in such activity, especially if domiciled outside D.C. (which quite honestly i dont believe is a territorial/’geographical place under IRC but a corporate govt body instead), is not the taxpayer subject to the code. He cannot be if domiciled outside the civil law.
However, the contractual obligation between such individual and a de facto (if it aint for legitimate govt purpose but mere business undertaking) governmental corporate body carries a stipulation that such individual, in his corporate capacity as an officer of a corporation ONLY (thus under rule 17( b ) representing a US entity) is required to file returns and pay the tax, and can be prosecuted under FTF 7201 et seq. This DOES NOT APPLY to public officers occuping a public office, because such offices are usually occupied by private individuals over whose payments (wages) the govt is the source and in complete control(in fact wages are govt property, the balance paid out being property of the public offcer).
This brings us to the voluntary assessment nature and compliance. These public officers do NOT have to file anything in fact. The source of their payments is a govt source and Congress has legislated recourse through levy on such wages, therefore if at the end of the year the public officer does not file anything, IRS will assess them and send the assessmen (providing a deficiency). The public officer (private individual usually nra) has the option of: 1) voluntary self assessment or 2) accept IRS assessment. If he/she chooses to do nothing, the IRS will levy the wages and pay balance to the public officer, thus officer NEVER HAD TO DO ANYTHING.
The corporate entity is different because payments and earnings to such corporations are out of reach of Congres (us govt), thus the officer (a fictional office of the corporation occupied by the individual) is required (agreed to) file returns and pay.
Brushaber was neither. He was a private entity having income from dividends of domestic corporation and thus his income was subject to the tax which was paid by the corporate officers who he sued to enjoin them from paying such tax. The officers of the corporation are taxpayers, and not the private individuals occupying that corporate office either (a tax attorney of the UPRR corp is not the taxpayer, but his official capacity is).
Am i making sense here?
I feel that this is the only way to bring it all together because to admit that Brushaber was the taxpayer is simply wrong because Congress cannot put that appellation on him because of his extraterritorial domicile. Furthermore, the contractual nature of the obligation still does not make him into the taxpayer, because he only agreed that income dervied from such domestic corporate earnings is subject to the tax, not him. Even if he did agree to be subject, he cannot be a taxpayer but only a debt payer/discharger, because he is not subject to the code (taxpayer definition), HIS INCOME IS.
I’m glad you guys made up. I was going to suggest a topless mud fight 😛
That last statement is correct but two things I want to correct, only in the interest of complete correctness and accuracy.
First, I don’t think it authorized anything. It just clarified and harmonized the income tax.
Second, income tax is a direct non apportioned tax on income (not U.S. sourced payments as some may be not includible in gross income) to ANYONE. No need to differentiate U.S. person and NON-U.S. persons.
Now I am confused. What do you mean you dont know who the nonresident alien in T.D. 2313 is? Of course it is Brushaber and all similarly situated individuals. I agree that he isn’t relevant to the liability, the liability being on income from stocks and dividends of domestics corporations, but I’m willing to bet my pinky the nra is in reference to individuals like Brushaber.
Second, are you suggesting admin, that retirement pay from U.S. gov’t sources is not ‘taxable’ because the individual is retired and not holding public office anymore? If that is what you are suggesting, knowing that the ‘tax’ is really just a contractual obligation of public office, I contend that what you saying is irrelevant. It depends on what the contract says on the issue. Therefore, where is the legal evidence to support that contention. I would argue that the U.S. gov’t has every right to make that taxable as well, as long as they notice the individual in Title 26, it matters not the individual is retired.
Such ‘income’ would be reportable because U.S. gov’t is paying it and reporting it, most likely. They can because it’s coming from them, a reportable source. Unless the contract says otherwise, I.e. that after retiring from public office retirement payments are NOT reportable, NOT includible in gross income and NOT in connection with a trade or business.
Guys relax….we’re on the same side.
T.D. 2313 said that it was the income received by a nonresident alien from domestic corporations that is taxable….not the nonresident alien.
Answer each other questions instead of fighting over the same issues.
