Author Topic: SM  (Read 423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,071
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
SM
« on: June 18, 2024, 07:01:55 AM »
Quote from: 17 July @ 10:38, OCR original post meme
Truth: Restaurants are informing us that servers no longer get to "cash-out " their credit card tips at the end of shift. The restaurant owner/ manager tallies the credit receipts & the tips get taxed & applied to the servers' payroll check every week/ 2 weeks. A lot of restaurants have already gone this direction. So with that being said, TIP YOUR SERVER IN CASH $ if you can . With so many people paying by credit card many servers are going home empty-handed at the end of their shift . 'Just something to think about entering this holiday season
Quote from: 17 July @ 10:42
Just in case you want to look it up.
Olk v. United States, 536 F2d 876 (1975):
"Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."
Quote from: 17 July @ 11:48
This is a suit to obtain a refund of federal income taxes. The issue is whether monies, called "tokes" in the relevant trade, received by the taxpayer, a craps dealer employed by Las Vegas casinos, constitute taxable income or gifts within the meaning of section 102(a), INT. REV. CODE of 1954. The taxpayer insists "tokes" are non-taxable gifts. If he is right, he is entitled to the refund for which this suit was brought. The trial court in a trial without a jury held that "tokes" were gifts. The Government appealed and we reverse and hold that "tokes" are taxable income.
https://www.anylaw.com/.../06-01-1976/dojYP2YBTlTomsSBoRJB

Try actually reading the case.

The[n] go find out what a "taxpayer" is.
Quote from: 17 July @ 12:04
Dale Eastman A taxpayer is a 14th Amendment citizen.
according to 26 CFR § 1.1-1(c)
If you are not also "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then you cannot be a taxpayer.
Note to self:26 CFR § 1.1-1(c)
Quote from: 17 July @ 12:39
You don't know what you don't know.
Answer these questions.
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/OpenQuestionnaire.html
Quote from: 17 July @ 17:19
Dale Eastman I quote the 14th Amendment and cite a tax regulation that uses the exact same language. Then you tell me I'm ignorant.
I'm familiar with tax arguments. I have not filed a tax return in 24 years.
What part makes me ignorant?
Quote from: 17 July @ 18:58
WRONG!
26 U.S. Code § 7701 - Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(14) Taxpayer
The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor object of revenue laws.
Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)

FN3.
The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. U.S.,
470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

History
Most of the significant history of the 14th Amendment appears in the text of Original Intent's citizenship treatise. However, one historical fact is not included because it was presumed during the construction of the treatise that every American knows that the 14th Amendment was created to nullify the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404 (1856).

Oddly, while the nullification of the Dred Scott decision is universally acknowledged as the reason the 14th Amendment was thought necessary, some ill-informed and/or illogical expositors attempt to use the Dred case as their rationale to turn the true meaning of the Amendment on its head. Fortunately, the words of Chief Justice Taney (author of the Dred decision) are unmistakably clear.
http://originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
Quote from: 17 July @ 19:32
Dale Eastman So what?
Why do you assume that restaurant servers are taxpayers?
Quote from: 17 July @ 20:53
Why do you assume that restaurant servers are taxpayers?

I don't. The original post points out that the restaurant owners do.
Quote from: 18 July @ 05:51
What makes restaurant servers completely subject to federal jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment?

Most of the significant history of the 14th Amendment appears in the text of Original Intent's citizenship treatise. However, one historical fact is not included because it was presumed during the construction of the treatise that every American knows that the 14th Amendment was created to nullify the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404 (1856).

Oddly, while the nullification of the Dred Scott decision is universally acknowledged as the reason the 14th Amendment was thought necessary, some ill-informed and/or illogical expositors attempt to use the Dred case as their rationale to turn the true meaning of the Amendment on its head. Fortunately, the words of Chief Justice Taney (author of the Dred decision) are unmistakably clear.

http://originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
« Last Edit: August 24, 2024, 08:09:16 AM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters