|
free_martha:
Do not underestimate the effectiveness of the absolute
simplicity of the IRS having to prove themselves.
Arguing that any part of the code is void for vagueness
will not wash in the courts, and it is the wrong
arguement to be making.
Never, ever get into a legal pissing contest with the IRS.
They have the decided edge. Instead, put them on the
defensive by requiring them to prove that one is
subject to an "income" tax.
Nor need there be any concern for any "special law."
Of course, this does not apply for anyone who has
submitted W-4 forms, or has "volunteered" themselves
into the hands of the IRS.
-----
Generally speaking, I see a lot of vitriolic criticism of a
personal nature directed at AndyK, and a few others,
with whom I have no familiarity.
To what end, really?
Will it cause anyone to change their minds?
No, and it is taking the low road, as well as tacitly acknowledging
the other party has "gotten to you."
Maybe it is just me, but resorting to childish name-calling
or denigrating another's POV, is not only ineffective, it also
feeds on itself by encouraging more opposing responses.
It is obvious that AndyK does not want to give my
limited, albeit formidable, point of view any credence.
That is his choice, as my position is mine.
Silence/ignoring another is mighty potent and very effective.
AndyK has given me his best shot, none of which had any
relevence to answering my challenge.
The rest is silence.
----
One other point to mrg:
Never present yourself as a non-taxpayer. You will then have
to prove yourself, and you are on the defensive.
Rather, you are not a taxpayer as defined by the IRC.
Make the IRS prove you are.
Ball in their court.
|