Cracking The Code is Successful!

[weishaupt1776]

If you are a United States citizen pursuant to the 14th Amendment & 8 USC, or alien lawfully admitted; then you must pay

Unless of course you can prove that you are not a U.S. Citizen via documentation you established PRIOR to the situation AND if you earned with your proper status already in place

[dorkenbutt]

US citizenship is a privilege bestowed upon the recipient under the 14th Amendment when he/she accepts US citizenship voluntarily. It is called voluntary servitude. Once you accept this privilege, as Weis has rightly stated, you must pay. P.H. foolishly believes the "income tax" has nothing to do with citizenship. LOL!!

[indago]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

What a non sequitur. Of course it's not a right -- but it's not a privileged activity, either (in fact, it's the exact opposite of a privileged activity). Now, how about explaining how it is that embezzlement income (as well as any other income earned from illegal activities) is taxable with an unapportioned tax, given your claim that such a tax must be based upon privileges.

Considering the fact that the federal "income tax" is a tax upon the act of doing business, whether legal or illegal, Manly S. Sullivan was convicted of not filing a tax return in connection with his moving a barge of moonshine liquors up the Charleston River during the Prohibition, a business in which he obtained "gains and profits".

Journalist Bill Moushey wrote for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 22 November 1998:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of times during the past 10 years, federal agents and prosecutors have pursued justice by breaking the law. They lied, hid evidence, distorted facts, engaged in cover-ups, paid for perjury and set up innocent people in a relentless effort to win indictments, guilty pleas and convictions, a two-year Post-Gazette investigation found. Rarely were these federal officials punished for their misconduct. Rarely did they admit their conduct was wrong. New laws and court rulings that encourage federal law enforcement officers to press the boundaries of their power while providing few safeguards against abuse fueled their actions. Victims of this misconduct sometimes lost their jobs, assets and even families. Some remain in prison because prosecutors withheld favorable evidence or allowed fabricated testimony. Some criminals walk free as a reward for conspiring with the government in its effort to deny others their rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider the case of O J Simpson, where the jury, having dealt with the police before — with their lying in their police reports; on the witness stand; and etc. — and after dismissing the police testimony, there just wasn't enough evidence left to convict. The jury in the Tommy Cryer case didn't believe government either, and found him not guilty of the charges that brought him to his trial.

The fact is SOME FOLKS ARE JUST NOT DRINKING GOVERNMENT KOOLAID ANYMORE.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by indago

Considering the fact that the federal "income tax" is a tax upon the act of doing business, whether legal or illegal...

Abandoning the privilege argument, eh? Well then, please explain why the following non-business receipts are taxable: alimony; interest on a savings account; gain on the sale of stock by one who's not in the business of investing; lottery winnings; dividends; income from trusts and estates; and income from the discharge of non-business debt.

The fact is SOME FOLKS ARE JUST NOT DRINKING GOVERNMENT KOOLAID ANYMORE.

No, they've switched to tax denier koolaid, which is far less believable.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Abandoning the privilege argument, eh? Well then, please explain why the following non-business receipts are taxable: alimony; interest on a savings account; gain on the sale of stock by one who's not in the business of investing; lottery winnings; dividends; income from trusts and estates; and income from the discharge of non-business debt.

all of these are both privileges and business. even alimony is some kind of corporate payout from a state-licensed enterprise. once the money gets processed through the tax-meter (like A UTILITY) this generates the bill. If the same flow can be accessed outside of the meter, there is no bill. If there is no utility service to begin with, there is no basis to rate any charges

[indago]

mertensv16 wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
explain why the following non-business receipts are taxable: alimony; interest on a savings account; gain on the sale of stock by one who's not in the business of investing; lottery winnings; dividends; income from trusts and estates; and income from the discharge of non-business debt.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. Government has usurped a power not granted. Why am I not surprised?

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

all of these are both privileges and business. even alimony is some kind of corporate payout from a state-licensed enterprise. once the money gets processed through the tax-meter (like A UTILITY) this generates the bill. If the same flow can be accessed outside of the meter, there is no bill. If there is no utility service to begin with, there is no basis to rate any charges

Oh, please. Alimony is a corporate payout??? Get real. Do you really believe all alimony payors are employed by corporations? Do you view marriage as a business?

There is no privilege in being the beneficiary of a trust or in realizing a gain on the sale of property or in receiving interest on a debt or in having a non-business debt discharged. None. Nada. Zip.
And we can change the lottery proceeds to private gambling winnings (no state involvement)

Moreover, if you try to link dividends to a privilege because the money comes from corporations, then it also follows that the wages of anyone working for a corporation would also be based on a privilege and would therefore be taxable.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by indago

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. Government has usurped a power not granted. Why am I not surprised?

You're not surprised because you haven't the faintest clue what a direct tax is under the Constitution. It is NOT a tax that is payable by an individual.

The income tax is an indirect tax and always has been (with the sole exception of a tax on investment income per the Pollock case).

Direct taxes under the Constitution are (a) capitation taxes, and (b) taxes on property solely by virtue of ownership. An income tax is neither.

Btw, direct taxes aren't prohibited by the Constitution; they just have to be apportioned. But because of the 16th Amendment, no income tax need be apportioned, even if the Pollock case is still good law (it probably isn't -- it is inconsistent with subsequent cases).

[Notorial dissent]

To put not too fine a point on it, Pete Hendrickson has lost at every turn in court, so his vaunted knowledge of the law, is only a legend in his own mind. His sheep, have all managed to get themselves into a great deal of trouble following his nonsense, and while they may initially get refunds based on his nonsense, they have all eventually had to not only return the funds, but return it with interest and penalties, and then file according to the real law, not Hendrickson’s delusions. Hendrickson has lost his civil cases to a one, and been denied repeatedly on appeal, he now has to put up and pay up. The criminal cases have yet to come, but come they will, both down on his head, but also on the heads of his followers..

As someone somewhere else pointed out, filing a CTC return is a guaranteed trip to auditsville and the never ending attentions of the IRS. Nothing like filing a return that says you are a full fledged idiot and tax cheat to get their attention.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Oh, please. Alimony is a corporate payout??? Get real. Do you really believe all alimony payors are employed by corporations? Do you view marriage as a business?

Yes marriage is a business, especially state-registered marraige, which is the only way there is going to be 'alimony', by court decree. Even a private relationship can be made public by asking the court to get involved.

There is no privilege in being the beneficiary of a trust or in realizing a gain on the sale of property or in receiving interest on a debt or in having a non-business debt discharged. None. Nada. Zip.

benficiary of trust: if the benefits themselves are "gross" then it matters not whether these are received through a trust, dividend, business or whatever- as a tax attorney you probably knew that already. The source is what creates taxability, not the means by which the income is conveyed.

gain on sale of property: gain is itself classified as taxable, invoking this characterization creates a source. Foreigners are excluded for some reason...but the gain has to be registered somehow to be noticed- nothing exists until it is proven. Its not surprising that "gains" realized through official channels like the stock market or real estate are considered taxable sources.

interest on debt- same thing, someone has to claim it is "gross" and that is usually a registered entity like a bank.

windfall profits- same deal, a vicarious liability adheres by information: a tax write-off by one part accrues to the other part.

And we can change the lottery proceeds to private gambling winnings (no state involvement)

State owns gambling, a semi-illicit activity. But again its the registered casinos and whatnot that declare this information. It isnt gambling 'til someone says it is.

Moreover, if you try to link dividends to a privilege because the money comes from corporations, then it also follows that the wages of anyone working for a corporation would also be based on a privilege and would therefore be taxable.

True. No wonder all those arguments of "my wages arent taxable" seem to fail.


------------------------------------------------------
The point is that these are all modalities that can be invoked, if accepted without challenge they stand. Since all this exists only in the perception of the beholders it really depends on the case being made.

The law creates options to make claims- if a situation is alleged, there is a process that in due course may create a tax liability. Nothing new there. A proper pleading duly accepted is law.

It's business and privilege because someone says it is, and if the transaction bears certain marks the system will presume this to be correct, complete and true.

A wide net is cast and whatever sticks, sticks. You are never going to be able to prove as a physical reality that any transaction even exists, or that it has a particular character. But it is provable as a legal reality.

In my experience people who devote alot of their lives to artificial realities tend to lose their perspective and confuse nature with man-made concepts. These days thats all of us to some extent, and most people in general.

because of the 16th Amendment, no income tax need be apportioned, even if the Pollock case is still good law (it probably isn't -- it is inconsistent with subsequent cases).

no income tax could ever be apportioned, because as you noted only direct taxes are apportioned, among the several states, based on population. it would be up to the states how to apportion this tax among the people. The moment an "income tax" was apportioned it would cease to be an income tax. The reason an income tax is even possible is that it is by very nature indirect. The 16th amendment just confirmed that all income taxes were indirect by law.