Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: May 05, 2023, 01:58:36 PM »
SCOTUS has said:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).
SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)
SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?
Since I'm getting spammed by ignorant or dishonest tax preparers, I'm returning the favor by asking this question. Please note all the failures and refusals to answer this very specific question about tax law.
Dale Eastman Sounds like this post is going to be evidence in a future legal case but ok
Dale Eastman it’s ok for you to believe this and act on it if you like the idea of going to jail. If not. Be smarter.
➽ "it’s ok for you to believe this and act on it if you like the idea of going to jail. If not. Be smarter."
Followed by a link to a page with these words:
➽ "This page is for this world's least stealthy criminals, who post about their unlegal activities on s"
Mr. G, I find posts like yours to be interesting. You make assumptions without knowledge, spew a claim without evidence. In a word, what you posted is bullshit... "But ok"
I then do what I always do when some... uh... person spews "ignorance" or if I'm being nice, nescience". I ask questions about such BS claims.
What criminal charge do you believe I would be jailed for?
Dale Eastman tax evasion. Have a nice day, buddy.
What is the law? Can you cite the statute where this law is?
Dale Eastman just trying to help you. If you don’t want to heed my advice you don’t have to. Idc. Just don’t want you leading innocent fools in the wrong direction. Take care and good luck with your intelligence level struggles
Dale Eastman you know what man… I’ll answer your question a bit more fully. The us tax code does not define income. It does define gross income as “all income from whatever source derived” we have a courts system in this country. Courts decide who goes to jail and what the laws say. The courts would think that not paying your taxes based on your “misunderstanding” of what they say is the law is a crime. If you read those decisions you cited you will see that they are dealing with very specific scenarios. Find me a case from a competent court that says wages aren’t income and I’ll bother talking to you further. Kind of seems like you like being a criminal tho
➽ Idc. Just don’t want you leading innocent fools in the wrong direction.
That Sir, is a most laudable sentiment. I applaud that you think that.
So this brings us directly to the reason for this discussion and the concepts that will follow. I think a very similar thing. I do care. I don't want innocent fools robbed of their compensation for labor. The are being robbed because the IRS LIES. The IRS lies of omission are the most notable. (If you've the balls to learn from an ignarnt layperson, I will be presenting my FRE#602 personal first hand knowledge of this point.)
➽ Dale Eastman you know what man…
No Sir, I do not. You've just made two errors of assumption. You assumed and presented as fact that I know some"thing". This error is based on your other assumption. You assumed I could read your mind.
I am a pedantic asshole. I own it. I do not, and will not, assume a person I am conversing with even knows the definitions of the words they use. In fact, by asking folks for the definition of a term or word THEY use so that I can be sure I understand their point, I get ghosted.
➽ The us tax code does not define income.
Correct.
➽ It does define gross income as “all income from whatever source derived”
Correct and misleading.
➽ Courts decide who goes to jail and what the laws say.
You appear to have missed this the first time I presented it...
SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)
➽ The courts would think that not paying your taxes based on your “misunderstanding” of what they say is the law is a crime.
You have NOT proven a misunderstanding on my part. And I am well aware of the Cheek decision.
Cheek v. United States - 498 U.S. 192, 111 S. Ct. 604 (1991) Rule:
Willfulness, as construed in criminal tax cases, requires the government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that he knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty. If the government proves actual knowledge of the legal duty, the prosecution, without more, has satisfied the knowledge component of the willfulness but misunderstanding may remain.
Can I correctly assume and opine that you are characterizing my "position" as willfully misunderstanding the tax law?
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter A - Crimes
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Who is the person required? Show me the law.
Dale Eastman that one’s easy, buddy. IRC 6012. it’s kind of a matter of common sense. Believe in your flavor of pedantry… sure. But if you choose to act as if you believe and others follow you, you will end up in jail. If you value your freedom. Pay your taxes. The end.
