Challenge For AndyK

[Glenn]

Question;

In your State is labor taxable....

If you own say a repair shop as a grage can you charge the customer a tax upon your or your empolyees labor ie..time?

You can not in Michigan then why can the state in direct violation of the laws at large tax labor?

Something to think about.

Glenn

[mnchicago]

It doesn't matter what I post in response to your "challenge"
because you will find the answer unacceptable.

It is really unfair for you to prejudge what I might say
in response. The only thing I would find "unacceptable"
would be an "answer" that does not answer the question.

26USC clearly spells out how to calculate your gross income,
your taxable income, and the tax on that income.

Actually, "gross income" is a term defined in the internal revenue
code. And, "gross income" is a term that specifically applies
only to taxpayers. Remember, I am not a taxpayer,
as defind in the code, so 26 USC does not apply to me,
or anyone else who is not a taxpayer as
defined by the IRC, and you have provided a non sequitur.

The only thing clearly spelled out in the entire tax code
is what applies to a taxpayer, and in that regard,
I am in total agreement with you as it applies to them.

Until you can tell me how anyone is subject to an
income tax, referring to any part of tax code or tax "law"
is irrelevant.

This point is key, so I will repeat, the tax code,
and /or any tax laws only apply to those who are
subject to them. First, you need to tell me what
I asked, how is one lawfully made subject to any
tax laws? Also, what part of this is silly? It's pretty
serious to me.

The income tax is a tax on the event of accession to wealth --
on the increase in someones net worth. [Now this is silly.]

In contrast, the "social security" tax (and others) is a tax on
wages, salaries, tips, and other earned income OR (in
the case of the self-employed) on their earnings.

Both of the above are non sequitur and irrelevant
to the single focus of the question.

According to the law, 26USC, every American citizen
and resident alien is subject to the tax and is required to
pay what they owe.

If I am not a taxpayer, as defined by the code itself,
nothing in the code applies, and you have made an
assumption in the above sentence which is not true.

You can play all the silly word games you want, but
they won't change a thing. You can quote from Black's
until your face turns blue -- it doesn't matter.

I was not aware that I was playing silly word games,
and you fail to identify what part of my inquiry was silly.

Unless you stipulate that ALL the courts, from the tax
court up to the supreme court, are corrupt and are
concealing the fact that you don't have to pay taxes,
then you have to accept their rulings and decisions. The
income tax is constitutional. It clearly spells out what is
taxed and who has to pay.

It is not necessary that I stipulate anything about any
court, let alone suggest or imply they may or may not be
corrupt. I do not recall any part of my "challenge" being
predicated upon the court system. After all, the courts
do not levy taxes. The IRS does. And until you can tell
me how I am subject to the so-called "income" tax,
you ain't ever going to find me in court, because the IRS
can't hold me to rules that simply do not apply to me,
until they can prove that I am lawfully subject to their
rules and regulations.

Let me point out, and apologies if you think it silly, the tax
courts, in particular, apply only to taxpayers,
they do not apply to anyone else who is not
subject to.

I repeat, "What makes someone subject to?"


You, once again, make a conclusory assumption that
"the income tax is constitutional" without offering an iota
of specifics about my only question.....what makes
anyone subject to the so-called "income" tax?

I won't even ask you to prove your statement that "the
income tax is constitutional." You have enough on your
plate already.

I can understand you not providing any answers to my
question, but I cannot understand why you supplied these
gratuitous answers that have nothing to do with my
simple question?

I trust you do not find any part of this response silly.

AndyK, I think you are a bright and articulate person,
but you have not risen to your abilities in your response,
in my opinion. You provided generalities, and they were
not substantiated, but assumed or irrelevent.

You went around answering my challenge, much as the
IRS goes around the same issue. I will say that I have
directly challenged an IRS agent who tried to make me
subject to all the IRS rules and regulations when
he tried to tell me that I owed taxes.

I repsonded that I will gladly pay any amount that
I lawfully owe, as soon as he can provide me
with proof that I am lawfully obligated to pay any
tax he claims I owe.

His response to date?

Silence. For two years, now

I personally delivered my letter to him asking for said proof,
and I personally delivered a letter to the head of the
Midwest office, directly in his hands, asking for the same
proof.

His response?

Silence. Also for two years.

I made FOIA requests for the IRS to prove a few simple
matters, including that I lawfully owe taxes. I was "routed"
to three different offices, and finally to the IRS on the
West Coast.

Their response? They all passed me off, and finally said
my request did not meet their standards and the matter
was closed per my FOIA requests.

It has not been for lack of effort on my part, and not
one person with whom I had any correspondence said my
questions were silly.

We needn't go back and forth on this. Let's consider this
issue done between us as it stands.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

AndyK, I think you are a bright and articulate person,
but you have not risen to your abilities in your response,
in my opinion. You provided generalities, and they were
not substantiated, but assumed or irrelevent.

You went around answering my challenge, much as the
IRS goes around the same issue. I will say that I have
directly challenged an IRS agent who tried to make me
subject to all the IRS rules and regulations when
he tried to tell me that I owed taxes.

I repsonded that I will gladly pay any amount that
I lawfully owe, as soon as he can provide me
with proof that I am lawfully obligated to pay any
tax he claims I owe.

His response to date?

Silence. For two years, now

I personally delivered my letter to him asking for said proof,
and I personally delivered a letter to the head of the
Midwest office, directly in his hands, asking for the same
proof.

His response?

Silence. Also for two years.

I made FOIA requests for the IRS to prove a few simple
matters, including that I lawfully owe taxes. I was "routed"
to three different offices, and finally to the IRS on the
West Coast.

Their response? They all passed me off, and finally said
my request did not meet their standards and the matter
was closed per my FOIA requests.

It has not been for lack of effort on my part, and not
one person with whom I had any correspondence said my
questions were silly.

We needn't go back and forth on this. Let's consider this
issue done between us as it stands.

Emphasis added.

You have done a good job in trying to seek answers.

I have asked the IRS simular questions, and I have had a simular response (45 day letter, never answered), silence. The same for AndyK, he dances around the issue, then he becomes silent.

As you can see, it is reasonable to conclude, the IRS, AndyK, etc., will not answer honest questions, because to do so would hurt their desire to confuse and profit from the fear and ignorance, and other fraudulent practices, that they have put into place.

[AndyK]

You are absolutely correct. The IRS can not show you a law that says "BOBT12 and mnchicago are subject to the income tax."

As a matter of fact, the IRS could not produce a law that said "Vernice Kuglin and Lloyd Long are subject to the income tax." which was their exact arguments.

However, both Long and Kuglin ended up paying the taxes, interest, and penalties because the courts determined that the IRS does not have to "show you the law."

As to your determination that you are not a taxpayer, how do you justify that with respect to

there is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined under tables which shall be prescribed by the Secretary and which shall be in such form as he determines appropriate.

I suppose that you are not an "individual" or that there isn't an adequate definition of "individual" which includes you.

I really don't have to "rebut" your claims, the courts have done so on many different occasions. If you take your blinders off and read some of the tax court and district court decisions, you will see that your arguments are so stale that they are summarily dismissed.

If you want to call this a victory on your part, more power to you. I think judgment should be reserved until you test your theories where it counts.

[RickA]

As for the courts saying that no law has to be presented.....sure, I know where your coming from, but that knife can cut both ways.

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by RickA

As for the courts saying that no law has to be presented.....sure, I know where your coming from, but that knife can cut both ways.

Please elucidate.

[mnchicago]

AndyK:

Relax. I am not trying to trick you in anyway.

You obviously feel complelled to bring people like me to
their senses and see the error of their ways, that the IRS
is owed their just due from every working individual in
this country.

Try, if you can, to suspend your beliefs and take my
position. What if you are wrong? If you are not, then
you have no need to feel threatened to look at this issue
from another perspective, as suggested.

There is a reason why the code takes up tens of thousands
of pages, and is essentially unintelligible in many instances,
purposefully convoluted to mask the factual truth....
that the IRS can not prove that anyone is lawfully
obligated to pay any income tax.

If anyone were, there would be a simple sentence saying as much.
There isn't because the truth of the matter is, no one is
lawfully obligated to pay the so-called "income" tax.

If you are unwilling, or unable, to suspend your ardent
beliefs and see it from this factual perspective, I can
accept that. No one likes to have their beliefs turned
upside down.

Rather than get involved in the mechanics of what part
of the IRC apllies to whom, and the myriad court case
cites, let me acknowledge that I hear you telling me
that they exist.

I suggest to you that many exist because defendants
did not know how to properly defend their case. I have
oftern repeated that anyone who tries to argue IRS
rules and regulations in court is almost guaranteed to
lose.

There is a reason why the IRS tries to railroad people
into fearing them, and the court system has to defend
the government's interest.

What you will not see published are the wins against the
IRS because it would alert people to the fact that all is
not as the IRS would have you believe. But again, that
is another issue, and I really do not want to get into it.

More importantly, I am going to italicsize part of what
you posted above, and respond.


As to your determination that you are not a taxpayer,
how do you justify that with respect to
Quote:
there is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the
taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined
under tables which shall be prescribed by the Secretary
and which shall be in such form as he determines appropriate.


Firstly, the terms you used, taxable year and taxable
income only apply to taxpayers, and no one
else. If I am not a taxpayer as defined in the code,
then none of the rules apply.

This is what I would like you to understand, if you can.
Unless and until, the IRS can prove that anyone, not
just me, is subject to/liable for any "income" tax,
then all the rules that pertain to taxpayer as
defined in the code, have no meaning.

I suppose that you are not an "individual" or that
there isn't an adequate definition of "individual" which
includes you.

I am an individual as much as you are, but I am not an
individual who is [b]subject to[b] to the tax code because
there is no law that compels me to be.


I really don't have to "rebut" your claims, the courts
have done so on many different occasions. If you take
your blinders off and read some of the tax court and
district court decisions, you will see that your arguments
are so stale that they are summarily dismissed.


No, you do not have to rebut anything, and so far, you
really haven't. You have cited some rules/regs that
apply to taxpayers, and you have ranted about
the number of tax cases supporting the IRS' postition as
it was presented in court.

Trust me, the IRS does not have a legal leg to stand on
against me, otherwise, they would have been huffing and
puffing and trying to break my door down, as they like to
do.

There has to be a dispute to go to court. I have no
dispute with the IRS. I wrote and told them that I will
happily pay whatever tax I lawfully owe just as
soon as they can show me that I do.

Andy, trust me, they can't. And I am not the one wearing
blinders, much as you would like to believe. Nor do I feel
to have to justify my position to you on an ongoing basis.
My position is clear; you have not even come close to
refuting it because you fail to see its legitimacy, let alone
understand it.

I hear you warn me about the court cases, but remember,
I'm not in court so it is an exercise in futility on your part
to "warn" me about an case that does not exist.

Do you think I do not have a legal defense that would
defeat the IRS? They have not even attemted to say
I owe any taxes. They have not attempted to assess me,
because they cannot. They have not responded to my
letters to them asking to prove their position.

It boggles your mind to even consider that the IRS could
be a fraud. Frankly, that is of no concern to me.

I wish you well on your mission showing how everyone
is allegedly responsible for paying income taxes and that
you think the income tax is Constitutional.

There is so much more I could throw your way to get
you to see the deception being perpetrated here, but
until you can get past this challenge, nothing else makes
sense.

Now, it has been my experience with you that you have
not been rude or overriding in any way toward me, so I
have no reason to put you on an ignore list...I wouldn't
know how to do it, anyway.

None of my arguements are stale. They are all very
relevant and unrebutted in their factual grounding.

So far, the only facts you have presented to me do not
apply because I am not one who is subject to any of the
code....and I have asked several offices within the IRS
to show me how and where I am subject to the "income"
tax.

I think we are done here. I apprecisate you efforts, and
I respect the views you have presented.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Your comment, as read by me, says my challenge depends upon something being true, that there are only two kinds of taxes. I cannot agree, and my apologies for being delinquent in responding.

My challenge is predicated solely on the fact that there
is nothing in the code which lawfully makes
a person subject to the so-called "income" tax.

We have capitation, property, and excise taxes.

Capitation taxes can be eliminated because Congress never imposed one.

Property taxes can be eliminated because income
is not property, and property taxes are apportioned
according to population, and the structure of the existing
tax table is obvioulsy not based upon apportionment.

That leaves an excise tax, which is based on some sort
of activity, and we must know what the actitivty is in order to know who is subject to such a tax.

The IRS remains mute on that and would not encourage any introspection by taxpayers, lest they realize the fraud being perpetrated.

Andy's response is exactly the type one would expect from a government stooge. The fact that he responds with a "working on it", only to come back with an excuse...

Originally Posted by AndyK

It doesn't matter what I post in response to your "challenge" because you will find the answer unacceptable.

followed by a general reference to title 26...

Originally Posted by AndyK

26USC clearly spells out how to calculate your gross income, your taxable income, and the tax on that income.

followed by more general spew is very telling of the evasive nature of these stooges when someone is trying to obtain direct answers (not to mention that the above statement AndyK made is in itself is false - thousands of pages of the tax codes frequently leads tax professionals to come to a different tax due amount on a 1040 for the same set of criteria).

Considering the amount of time it took AndyK to formulate a response and the content of his answer, the only words to describe his post is utterly pathetic.

[AndyK]

I am very happy for you that you have justified your position in your own mind.

If you earned enough and had a large enough tax deficiency to make it worthwhile, the IRS would have followed up.

If your unpaid taxes are sufficient to be of interest, remember two things:

First, there is a very long statute of limitations on fraudulent underpayment.

Second, there is a ten-year limitation on collection, which can be easily extended.

Keep on playing your stupid word games. They don't matter. When push comes to shove, your arguments will topple like a house of cards in a tornado.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by AndyK

However, both Long and Kuglin ended up paying the taxes, interest, and penalties because the courts determined that the IRS does not have to "show you the law."

Do you have a reference to the court case where Kuglin was found guilty and the court told her the IRS doesn't need to show her the law? I know of the case where she was found not guilty of willful failure to file, but not of any other.

What is the case number to which you're referring?