JS

[Dale Eastman]

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 1. Tax imposed states:
[...]
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
[...]

Section 5001 Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax states:
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.

Imposition of this tax creates (imposes) no liability for any one to pay it.

Section 5005 Persons liable for tax states:
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

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?

I have found and read with my own eyes, the law that makes the following classes of person liable for the income tax imposed in section 1 "by clear and unequivocal language".

Sec. 2. Definitions and special rules, (d) Nonresident aliens
Sec. 641. Imposition of tax
Sec. 701. Partners, not partnership, subject to tax
Sec. 871. Tax on nonresident alien individuals
Sec. 876. Alien residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands
Sec. 877. Expatriation to avoid tax
Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
Sec. 1474. Special rules, (a) Liability for withheld tax

The preceding classes of person are specifically pointed out as being required to pay (made liable for) the income tax imposed in section 1. This liability is imposed in language that is just as clear and unequivocal as the distilled spirits tax liability you were shown previously. This liability is not implied. There is no doubt and there is no question that those classes of person are liable for the section 1 income tax.

Working stiffs in the U.S. of America are not those persons.

Dale Eastman, are you trying to say that the existence of an excise tax on imported alcoholic beverages somehow invalidates the personal income tax? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

You might say I'm not trying to say anything. I just presented an important chunk of what the tax law actually is. So I am a little confused as to what you are actually asking. I could be in error in assuming you didn't read and/or understand this question:

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?

Do you understand that no liability, no requirement to pay a tax on your domestic compensation for labor?

Dale Eastman, that would be the part right after you cut off the quotation. "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -" and then specifies the different brackets for married filing jointly, head of household, single, married filing separately, and estates/trusts.
I "understand" what you're saying, but I'm also familiar enough with the law to understand that it's false.

And YouTube legal 'experts' don't fare well in the world of ACTUAL law.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-court-bars-nevada-man-promoting-tax-fraud-scheme

➽ I'm also familiar enough with the law to understand that it's false.

That what, specifically, is false?

Dale Eastman, what's false is every single variation on the 'individuals aren't actually required to pay any income tax' lie. It's a particularly harmful lie because it sucks in people who would otherwise be fighting to change the law and giving them the false belief that they don't have to...both wasting their energy and destroying their credibility. It would not surprise me at all to some day find that the government was behind this particular urban legend.

Okay. Thank you for explaining what I assumed you meant.

Also, Thank you for informing me that you believe the government's lies.

➽ I "understand" what you're saying,

I don't think you do.

So I'm going to ask you again:
Do you understand that no liability means no requirement to pay a tax?

I have an answer to your posting the link to the injunction. That fellow has not paid income tax on his compensation of over 20 years. And... The IRS knows exactly who I am. I quit paying when I learned the truth.

I've some errands to run. I'll not be done until after 17:00 EDT. We can pick up the discussion then.

Dale Eastman, that’s like saying “do you understand that the world is flat?” Asking someone if they “understand” the urban legend you’re repeating is a particular clumsy way to try to frame the issue in terms of their not ‘understanding’ how right you are, rather than offering any credible support for your claims. It’s what people do when they know the facts aren’t on their side.

“That fellow has not paid…”
Because he says so. And he MUST be telling the truth, because…um…

I've just a few more minutes before I must run my errands.

➽ that’s like saying “do you understand that the world is flat?”

By that statement you just implicitly admitted that you do not understand the issue of liability needing to be imposed.
1. Admit or deny.

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)
2. Admit or deny.

Section 5001 Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax states:
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.

Imposition of this tax creates (imposes) no liability for any one to pay it.
3. Admit or deny.

Section 5005 Persons liable for tax states:
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

This statute creates (imposes) a clear and unequivocal on who is required to pay the tax imposed in section 5001(a)(1).
4. Admit or deny.

Take your time thinking about how you intend to answer these 4 questions. I'm away until later.

"By that statement you just implicitly admitted that you do not understand the issue"

I see that we're now past the dishonest implications into the blatant lies. Interesting. The fact that I'm not gullible enough to believe something does not by any sane logic imply that I don't understand it.

"Admit or deny"

Yet more verbiage that demands the assumption that your claims are true.

No need to take my time on this...I've dealt with dishonest conspiracy cultists desperate to turn their rejection of reality in favor of some BS they found on the internet into evidence of superiority over everyone else many times before.

Dale Eastman, as far as I can tell, you're arguing that since the law regarding a completely different tax specifies who is liable for it, the fact that the law regarding individual income tax doesn't explicitly say that the person who earned the income is the one with the tax liability means that they have none. Pretty ridiculous.

At this time I forgive your attempted contextomy. I do not at this time have reason to claim illintent on your part.

I specifically make a claim and then follow the claim with the question, "Admit or deny?" This is my attempt to make discussions inter-active. I do this because of past attempts at discussion with people that refuse to focus on each specific point I present.

You wrote:
➽ that’s like saying “do you understand that the world is flat?”

I wrote:
By that statement you just implicitly admitted that you do not understand the issue of liability needing to be imposed.
1. Admit or deny.

I admit that I typo'd and forgot to add the question mark. I'm disappointed that you couldn't figure out admit or deny was both a question and a prompt for you to... Admit or deny my statement.

Your failure / refusal to answer makes be wonder... Never mind.

D-e-n-y
Four letters would have been sufficient to signify you did not agree.

➽ I see that we're now past the dishonest implications into the blatant lies.
These are your words.
5. Admit or deny?

With those words, You just accused me of blatantly lying.
6. Admit or deny?

29 August 10:41:
➽ Dale Eastman, what's false is every single variation on the 'individuals aren't actually required to pay any income tax' lie.
These are your words.
7. Admit or deny?

You are claiming I am lying by posting to the effect that "individuals aren't actually required to pay any income tax"
8. Admit or deny?

➽ rather than offering any credible support for your claims
These are your words.
9. Admit or deny?

With those words you have claimed I'm not offering credible support for my claims.
10. Admit or deny?

The Supreme Court 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)
2. Admit or deny.

07:43
06:48

Dale Eastman, that's a LOT of typing to say that you have no capacity to support your claims, but in your imagination they're true unless someone proves (to YOUR satisfaction) otherwise, and you feel like a wall of text containing a patchwork of meaninglessly vague or questionably relevant assertions is going to confuse people enough to take that thought process seriously. Standard conspiracy cult non-logic.

For people who AREN'T desperately playing cut-and-paste with the law to justify a fantasy where it doesn't really mean what it says, this is easy to understand: there is a tax imposed on every type of income, other than that explicitly excluded, of every individual in the US.

The Supreme Court 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)
2. Admit or deny.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Boyd+v.+United+States%2C+116+U.S.+616%2C+627+%281886%29

09:29
09:18

Dale Eastman, the "admit or deny" mantra isn't any more meaningful than it was the first few dozen times you repeated it. And the Boyd case had nothing to do with individual income taxes - it was about whether the government can compel the production of evidence in an asset forfeiture case without a warrant.
"If it is law, it will be found in our books"
The individual income tax is "found in our books," so...

I'll take your response as an admission of question #2: If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.

I am NOT required to obey a law that does NOT exist.
11. Admit or deny?

10:27
10:19

Dale Eastman, repeating your mantra doesn’t change reality. The tax code DOES exist.

You’re raising all kinds of “FED” red flags here…it looks very much like you’re trying to 1) attack the credibility of anti-coercion values by associating them with mindless adherence to flat-earth-type fantasies and 2) convince people to do things that will give the state an excuse to punish them.

I'm not arguing that the tax code doesn't exist.

Now dragging your willfully ignorant focus back on point and testing your logical thinking at the same time:

I am NOT required to obey a law that does NOT exist.
11. Admit or deny?

“Now dragging your willfully ignorant focus back on point”

…says the guy who has substituted a barrage of disjointed tangents for anything remotely resembling support for his fantasy that people ackshewelly don’t have to pay taxes because…something.

If at some point you decide to provide that support, I’ll respond. If not, we’re done here, fedboi.

I am going.... Correction, I WAS going to drag your willfully ignorant ass through all the appropriate statutes one by one. Ditto the appropriate Supreme Court citations. Then I would test your ability to think logically and comprehend all these words of law.

I am NOT required to obey a law that does NOT exist.
11. Admit or deny?

Clearly on the basis of logic, you can not deny point #11.
Being unable to deny point #11, you refuse to admit point #11.

Your refusal allows me to speculate that you are a coward and you don't want to be proven wrong... One numbered step at a time.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1671.0