JP

[Dale Eastman]

Creationist Kent Hovind Is Revenge-Suing the Government for $536,041,100.00

Who thinks he's got a shot at the $500 million?

i agree that prison time seemed excessive. Honestly, I think they threw the book at him for how he handled the whole situation. From bragging about it, encouraging others to follow his lead, and then attempting to bully his way out of everything, while enlisting others in his operation.
All said, I don't agree with him getting all that time. Our justice system is shit.

Yeah, Hovind tried claiming he was not a citizen of the US, and his property wasn't on US soil.
Here's a much more in depth link of the case.
https://www.forbes.com/.../paul-hansen-provides-legal.../

Forbes

It's a long article, don't bother if you're not truly interested lol. I just know the first link I shared was kinda shitty. This is just way more in depth than it needs to be. I personally only skimmed this one above.
It would be cool if you could just move to a cabin in the woods and be left the fuck alone. The logistics would be difficult though.

Identified ALLEGED Thinkers discussing tax law they have never looked at. 'Nuff said?
synapticsparks.info/t

doesn't take a tax expert to know what structuring and openly bragging about tax evasion will lead to bud 👌

Identified ALLEGED Thinkers discussing tax law they have never looked at.
Unless you've actually taken the time to read the tax law, you have exactly zero to contribute on the topic... Bud.

Incorrect. Notice I've actually added information to the discussion I started. You're just crying no tax experts are present.
By all means, show anything I've said that was false here.

By all means, Show me the law that makes compensation for labor taxable as "income".
By all means, Show me the law that makes me liable for a tax on income.
By all means, Show me the law that requires me to file a Form 1040.

No. I am NOT crying "no tax experts are present". I crying that Identified ALLEGED Thinkers are too stupid to read what the written words of the tax law actually say.

Compared to you, I AM a tax expert.

Internal Revenue Code
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter A - Crimes
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, [shall have bad things happen blah, blah.]

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 have bad things happen blah, blah.]

So tell me about the requirement to make a return. Bud.

maybe this will improve your expertise in the matter, especially relating to Hovind. The guy who ALSO openly bragged about never paying income taxes.
https://www.taxcontroversy.com/avoiding-unintentional.../

https://www.taxcontroversy.com/avoiding-unintentional-structuring-of-cash-transactions/

I am aware of the politician's opinions against structuring funds transfers.

You have not presented the legal definition of what, specifically, is "taxable income".

Therefore, you have presented exactly nothing regarding whether he was legally required to pay an "income" tax.

Therefore, I repeat:
Identified ALLEGED Thinkers discussing tax law they have never looked at.

BTW, after writing the above, I clicked the link you provided. It has nothing to do with the issue I am raising.

So I repeat: You have presented exactly nothing regarding whether he was legally required to pay an "income" tax.

I am making the rebuttable error of assuming you have been indoctrinated just like the rest of the sheeple, that it's your "duty" to be fleeced by the criminal syndicate called government because you've never read the law.

That didn't work for Hovind in court, but hey, shoot your shot my dude. Just don't brag about it on videos online for the IRS to play in court 👌

I direct the audience's attention to the missing definition of "taxable income".

all of admission fees Kent charges for Dino Land.

Me ➽ I direct the audience's attention to the missing definition of "taxable income".

You ➽ all of admission fees Kent charges for Dino Land

You have again not presented the legal definition of what, specifically, is "taxable income".

So I again direct the audience's attention to the missing definition of "taxable income".

Definitely his earnings from YouTube videos.

You have again not presented the legal definition of what, specifically, is "taxable income".

So I again direct the audience's attention to the missing definition of "taxable income".

Now I start to get snarky and personal.
You are allegedly an Identified Thinker.
You have been asked to present the law that is the starting point for any discussion of any requirement to pay an "income" tax.
You refuse to present the law...
Which means you don't fucking know.
Instead of attempting to learn, you insist upon posting your opinion about what YOU believe fits in that category of "taxable income."
So repeating what I wrote earlier: Unless you've actually taken the time to read the tax law, you have exactly zero to contribute on the topic.

Perhaps you are being stubborn because I am specifically and intentionally hijacking your thread about... INCOME tax. Or you could be unable to admit that I really do know more about the income tax than you know. I don't really care why.

I am asking you for the legal definition because I know where it is in the tax code, and I know where to find the Supreme Court rulings about the "income tax". Unless you get a clue about what the written words of the law actually say, you simply do not know WTF you are pretending to know.

I'm pretty sure his DVD sales also fall under taxable income.

➽ pretty sure

Your pretty sure opinion does not present the actual law regarding "taxable income" does it?

Well I definitely know that the money he makes from debates is taxable income.

Now the money he gets from church donations, that's not taxable income.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
That means: An assertion without proof may be denied without proof.
You are wrong.

You have again not presented the legal definition of what, specifically, is "taxable income".

So I again direct the audience's attention to the missing definition of "taxable income".

So you think church donations are taxable income??

You have again not presented the legal definition of what, specifically, is "taxable income".

So I again direct the audience's attention to the missing definition of "taxable income".

You think I'm gonna let you slide on showing the law(s) that define "taxable income"?

Seems like you just dodged a question...

Nope. Flat out ignored it.

You should be able to recognize when I take a page out of your playbook.

By now it should be obvious to anybody reading this exchange that you don't know shit about the law defining taxable income.

Therefore, I repeat:
Identified ALLEGED Thinkers discussing tax law they have never looked at.

So you just keep digging your hole.

So do you think if he sells sermons on a DVD, it's considered taxable income?

This discussion is not about what I think.
This discussion is not about what you think.
This discussion is about what the effin tax code says.

An issue you refuse to address.
Lemme repeat myself... Sigh... Again:
You have again not presented the legal definition of what, specifically, is "taxable income".
So I again direct the audience's attention to the missing definition of "taxable income".

When you admit that you are discussing a law that you have never read, I would be very happy to direct your attention (and anybody else following this discussion) to where the tax code can be read on a DotGov site.
Starting with the Form 1040 instructions.

He definitely got popped for structuring though.

➽ He definitely got popped for structuring though.

And... ? ? ?

Did you really think that would distract me from observing your failure / refusal to present the legal definition of what, specifically, is "taxable income"?

You know... that one thing you could post to prove me wrong when I claim you don't know shit about the income tax code.

Structuring is intentionally making withdrawals under $10,000 to avoid mandatory bank reporting, which is used, in some cases, to avoid reporting taxable income.

I already told you, I am aware of what structuring is.

Did you really think that would distract me from observing your failure / refusal to present the legal definition of what, specifically, is "taxable income"?

You know... that one thing you could post to prove me wrong when I claim you don't know shit about the income tax code.

Do you think Hovind will win his case?

I don't care.

What I care about is people discussing laws they know nothing about.

I find it interesting that you are so locked onto NOT admitting you don't know shit about the tax codes.

Definitely his earnings from YouTube videos are taxable income.

Says the guy who can't even post the legal definition of "taxable income".

I'm pretty sure his DVD sales also fall under taxable income.

Says the guy who doesn't even know the legal definition of "taxable income".

Well I definitely know that the money he makes from debates is taxable income.

Gee... How can you know that when you don't know what the legal definition of taxable income is?

Now the money he gets from church donations, that's not taxable income.

Gee... How can you know that when you don't know what the legal definition of taxable income is?

all of admission fees Kent charges for Dino Land would fall under taxable income.

Gee... How can you know that when you don't know what the legal definition of taxable income is?

Definitely his earnings from YouTube videos are taxable income.

Gee... How can you know that when you don't know what the legal definition of taxable income is?

Well I definitely know that the money he makes from debates is taxable income.

No. You don't.
Prove me wrong about your claim.
Show me HOW you know.

Animated in original location.

Is there a reason why you're not citing chapter & verse?

the one about structuring?

No. The one about what taxable income is.

like where it states religious institutions don't have to pay taxes on donations they receive?

Okay... I'll pretend that you are as stupid as you are pretending to be... Of course, I really don't know if you are pretending or if you really are as stupid as you are presenting yourself to be.

You have made 5 assertions; You have made 5 claims.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat; Onus probandi; The burden of proof is on you to support and prove your claims. It is not my burden to disprove your claims.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=onus+probandi&ia=definition

1)➽ Definitely his earnings from YouTube videos are taxable income.
2)➽ I'm pretty sure his DVD sales also fall under taxable income.
3)➽ Well I definitely know that the money he makes from debates is taxable income.
4)➽ Now the money he gets from church donations, that's not taxable income.
5)➽ all of admission fees Kent charges for Dino Land would fall under taxable income.

Thus, it is YOUR burden to provide the evidence that your claims are correct. Since taxable income is statutorily defined in the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) it has a chapter and verse (actually: Title; Subtitle; Chapter; Subchapter; Part; & Section) you could cite to prove to me that you know what you are writing about.

I challenged you to show me how you know, but being the dishonest, disingenuous person you are being, you pretended the context didn't exist. Let me spell it out for you, just like you are as stupid as you are pretending to be:

Show me HOW you know that those things you claimed are or are not taxable income, are or are not taxable income.
PRESENT the legal definition of "taxable income".