Virginia sure made this easy!

#1 03-06-2004, 12:29 AM

Maybe I'm tired, but this surely seems to say it best.& I live in Virginia (yeah, lucky me). Here goes, from the Code of Virginia:

General Provisions:

§ 1-13.19. Person.

The word "person" shall include any individual, corporation, partnership, association, company, business, trust, joint venture or other legal entity. 

§ 1-13.26. State.

The word "state," when applied to a part of the United States, shall be construed to extend to and include the several commonwealths therein, the District of Columbia and the several territories so-called. 

§ 1-13.31. United States.

The words "United States" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia and the several territories so-called.

[Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius: The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.] 

§ 1-18. Who are citizens. Taxation, Income Tax

All persons born in this Commonwealth; all persons born in any other state of this Union, who may be or become residents of this Commonwealth; all aliens naturalized under the laws of the United States, who may be or become residents of this Commonwealth; all persons who have obtained a right to citizenship under former laws; and all children, wherever born, whose father, or, if he be dead, whose mother, shall be a citizen of this Commonwealth at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth. 

§ 58.1-302. Definitions. (Title 58 is income tax)

For the purpose of this chapter and unless otherwise required by the context:

"Individual" means all natural persons whether married or unmarried and fiduciaries acting for natural persons, but not fiduciaries acting for trusts or estates

Therefore:

Since "person" includes "individual," and "individual" includes "natural person," that makes me a "natural person." And

Since "state" includes the several states, DC, and terrorities, and

Since "United States" includes DC and territories, and

Since&"persons born" in Virginia are "citizens" of Virginia,

THEN "persons" born in Virginia can NOT be citizens of the "United States" because "United States" means&DC and territories.

Am I missing something?

Hope not. There's a couple of "agents" at Virginia Dept of Taxation who would like to burn me at the stake, and nothing I like more than adding fuel to the fire.

And IF this is sound reasoning, think of the ramifications.

All those "are you a citizen of the US" questions would have to be answered with a "No."

State income tax?& Null and void since I'm NOT a citizen of US and "federal adjusted gross" income would be meaningless.

Oh, the mind boggles. But again, the mind it tired.

So, speak up, please.& And thanks.

Randy

(By the way: I'm still new around here. Gotta say: Y'all got a tremendous thing going on here. You should be really proud of yourselves.)

#2 03-06-2004, 06:47 AM

Randy,

Well, there might be just a little something missing.

Indiviidual: As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. State v. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am.Rep. 538.

So the word "person" in Virginia must be a legal entity if nothing else than by association. Note the last phrase "other legal entity".

But, "individual" means all natural persons...

So your "Therefore:" makes sense only IF "natural person" makes sense. But by their own definitions "natural person" MUST be an oxymoron. Thus that '"individual" means...' paragraph is a red herring.

Jim

Ice · #3 03-06-2004, 08:35 AM

natural person is defined elsewhere in this forum... I forget who posted it... but I believe that it is defined as "idiot".

&

#4 03-06-2004, 09:17 AM

Y'all will have fun this. A previous Tax Comm. ruling on this very topic.
********************

Rulings of the Tax Commissioner

August 19, 2003

Article 1 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia sets forth the general provisions for taxes administered within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia Code § 58.1-1, which is included in Article 1 of this Title, defines "taxpayer" to mean:

every person, corporation, partnership, organization, trust or estate subject to taxation under the laws of this Commonwealth, or under the ordinances, resolutions or orders of any county, city, town or other political subdivision of this Commonwealth. (Emphasis added.)

Taxpayers, therefore, are identified as persons, corporations, partnerships, organizations, trusts, and estates. The term, "person" includes individuals who would be subject to taxation under the laws of Virginia.

Chapter 3 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia specifically sets forth the income tax laws administered by the Department. Virginia Code § 58.1-302 defines "individual" to mean:

all natural persons whether married or unmarried and fiduciaries acting for natural persons, but not fiduciaries acting for trusts or estates. (Emphasis added.)

In this statute, an individual is specifically defined as a natural person. Partnerships, corporations, estates, trusts, and similar entities are excluded from this definition. As the Taxpayer has correctly stated, he is a natural person and, as such, is considered an individual for Virginia tax purposes.

Virginia Code § 58.1-320 provides, "A tax is hereby annually imposed on the Virginia taxable income for each taxable year of every individual . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Any individual who receives Virginia taxable income is subject to Virginia income tax.
*******************

So, in his world:

"Taxpayers" are "persons" and&"individuals" are "natural persons," and that means you have to pay.

But he didn't talk about& "persons." Which goes back to what Jim pointed out.

I hate tax-people.

Randy

#5 03-06-2004, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice

natural person is defined elsewhere in this forum... I forget who posted it... but I believe that it is defined as "idiot".

&

Hi, Ice...

I'll look for it. But it did get me to thinking. Wow. There's no end to this madness, is there?

Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary:

natural

7. Begotten without the sanction of law; born out of wedlock; illegitimate; bastard; as, a natural child.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary:

natural

7. Begotten without the sanction of law; born out of wedlock; illegitimate; bastard; as, a natural child.
************

So, I guess it really is settled:

We are not "natural." We are not "persons." We are not "citizens." We are.....what the hell are we, right?

Randy

#6 03-06-2004, 11:14 AM

<DIV>&Here's what I found for Natural person</DIV>
<DIV>&</DIV>
<DIV>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
</DIV><PRE> Natural person (Law), a man, woman, or child, in
distinction from a corporation.

</PRE>

#7 03-06-2004, 03:37 PM

you can read all about what a natural person is here:

&

http://www.natural-person.ca/

James · #8 03-06-2004, 04:59 PM

Ice
&
>>natural person is defined elsewhere in this forum... I forget who posted it... but I believe that it is defined as "idiot".<<<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
Natural, noun.1. An idiot; one born without the usual powers of reason or understanding.[Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]<o

></o

>
Natural. adjective. 1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong *natural justice*[Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 10th Ed.]& <o></o>
The word natural used, as a noun would mean “idiot” example: “natural-person”(a hyphen between natural and person means natural has noun meaning not an adjective modifying person) The word natural used, as an adjective would mean of or pertaining to nature, example: natural food. So “natural person”, without hyphen, in law is really an oxymoron as Jim has stated. In ordinary street language it is o.k.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Randy<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
The word/term "person" is not, in legal terms or political terms, a man or a woman.
Person: "In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. <o

></o

>
Person: "...not every human being is a person." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1957 & 1968, p.1300.<o

></o

>
Think of person as an image. Person =Image (presence or countenance). <o

></o

>
To support this statement I will use the popular “King James Bible” to wit:<o

></o

>
“We shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” (Leviticus 19:15)& 
It does not say, "thou shalt not respect the poor, nor honour the mighty," but only the person of the poor and the person of the mighty.<o

></o

>
“…for thou regardest not the person of men.” (Matthew 22:16)<o

></o

>
It does not say, " …for thou regardest not men,” but only the person of men.<o

></o

>
“…for your sakes forgive I it in the person of Christ;” (2 Corinthians 2:10)<o

></o

>
It does not say, "… for your sakes forgive I it in Christ,” but only in the person of Christ.<o

></o

>

>>every person, corporation, partnership, organization, trust or estate subject to taxation under the laws of this Commonwealth, or under the ordinances, resolutions or orders of any county, city, town or other political subdivision of this Commonwealth. (Emphasis added.)<<<o

></o

>
You underlined every person, also you should underline subject to. Every person, corporation, partnership, organization, trust or estate might not be subject to taxation. Also, a maxim of law states to wit: Copulatio verborum indicat acceptionem in eodem sensu. Coupling words together shows that they ought to be understood in the same sense. Bacom's Max. in Reg. 3. So “person” would be understood in the same sense as other fictions.(corporation, partnership, organization, trust, or estate). Not a man or woman.<o

></o

>

>>Taxpayers, therefore, are identified as persons, corporations, partnerships, organizations, trusts, and estates. The term, "person" includes individuals who would be subject to taxation under the laws of Virginia.<<<o

></o

>
“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers[/b], 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 of the subject [/b]nor of the object of the revenue laws.” Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States[/i], 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (Ct.C1. 1972). (Emphasis added.)<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Notice how they use “term” and not “word.”<o

></o

>
Term. noun. a word or expression that has a precise meaning in some uses or is peculiar to a science, art, profession, or subject *legal terms*& b plural : expression of a specified kind.[Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 10th Ed.]<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>>In this statute, an individual is specifically defined as a natural person. Partnerships, corporations, estates, trusts, and similar entities are excluded from this definition. As the Taxpayer has correctly stated, he is a natural person and, as such, is considered an individual for Virginia tax purposes.<<

Remember in legal terms or political terms a “natural person” is not the same as natural man or natural woman.: "In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. <o

></o

>
Term. noun. a word or expression that has a precise meaning in some uses or is peculiar to a science, art, profession, or subject *legal terms*& b plural : expression of a specified kind.[Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 10th Ed.]<o

></o

>

>>So, in his world: "Taxpayers" are "persons" and&"individuals" are "natural persons," and that means you have to pay.<<<o

></o

>

Not a natural man or natural woman, maybe a person or natural person if it is subject to taxation.<o

></o

>

>>But he didn't talk about& "persons." Which goes back to what Jim pointed out.<<<o

></o

>
A person is created by man, whereas a man is created by Elohim (God). Elohim does not create artificial things, only man does. <o

></o

>

Read the following, infra, by "The Informer" and check out the site for complete article<o

></o

>

“You see, the whole game is to control you by making you, the man, into a artificial entity called a "person." In ordinary street language you can use the term person. But the minute you step into ANY legal arena you CANNOT use the term "person." For to do so the other artificial person, the State, can come after another artificial character. As the court stated above "man" is not bound by other men’s laws unless he consents. You consent when you answer to any statute containing any reference to person. The clever trick is that the statute 26 USC 7701(a) of the IRC is the definition part and it says "person" means; an individual, partnership, corporation, association. Notice that all terms defining the word "person are corporate fictions. BUT, you say, individual is not a corporate fiction because am I not an individual? Yes you are in average common street terms, but in the legal arena "individual is corporate or artificial by legal definition, because "individual," in and of itself is defining an artificial thing as a "person." So how can it be a natural man? It goes against all reason and logic. The IRC Code Statute only pertains to man, who as stated above by the Professor, takes on the artificial character and becomes a "person" by legal definition. Therefore he is subject to all the legal disabilities that come with the term person and that means being subject to all the laws of the parent corporation. The parent corporation is the United States, the State is the artificial child and you are the artificial grand child. That is the best way to describe it so you can start to equate terms and meanings.”[http://www.freedomdomain.com/sovereignty/inform15.html]<o

></o

>

>>I hate tax-people.<<

I like the way you use proper grammar in the phrase “tax-people.” Are they really people? How about, tax-persons, tax-agents or natural-tax-persons, natural-tax-agents?

<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>

#9 03-06-2004, 05:19 PM

note, that, in their definitions of person, individual, and&natural person they used the terms person & individual freely and interchangeably considering the term being defined.& thus they cross-reference each other without clearly defining each.&

isn't it a common maxim of definitions that a word cannot be used to define itself?

also, terms like "living, flesh-and-blood human being" are NOT used to define "individual" nor "person."

am i off base here?

jon

Ice · #10 03-06-2004, 08:44 PM

James,

I like having you around!!& You tend to keep us all in check!!& Thanks much for the SOUND INFO!!

Ice

&