Challenge For AndyK

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by RickA

Yes I did. It's the one in red bold

What words do you want? The specific US Code section that says "RickA is subject to the tax laws and owes $1,256.97 for 2005?"

What exactly are you looking for?

[RickA]

What words do you want? The specific US Code section that says "RickA is subject to the tax laws and owes $1,256.97 for 2005?"

As it stands now, I wish.....

What exactly are you looking for?

All attempts at my trying to be humorous aside.
The law that says every single man and woman is required to pay an income tax.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by RickA

Yes I did. It's the one in red bold

Rick,

You can ask till the cows come home and AndyK will not answer the question or he will give the usual non-responsive answer stooges like him give. I cannot tell you how many times I have asked what law makes me a non-taxpaying, non-US citizen liable to pay an "income tax." Never have received a reply and don't believe I ever will.

[mnchicago]

Andy:

You are so intent on proving yourself right, and everyone else
wrong, that you fail to comprehend my posts.

I have not justified my position in my own mind, I put it
out there for you to dispute. In fact, there is really
nothing to justify, for it stands on its own merit.
Consider your initial opening sentence from your previous
post:

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

You miss the importance of that. Nothing else matters.

Andy, I have no tax deficiency. Why on earth would you
think that is a necessary requisite to deny being a
taxpayer as defined by the IRC?

To have a tax deficiency, one must be a taxpayer.
Do you see how the posing of such a question shows how
you clearly miss the point?

Nor do I have any unpaid taxes, as you erroneously assume.
In fact, according to the IRS, I do not owe anything.


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

Fraud? Where is the fraud? What is the statute of
limitations on nothing due or owing?


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.

Andy, you have resorted to type in this kind of sophomoric
rhetoric. If you find this all a "stupid word game, I
better appreciate how you alienate people. When your
non sequitur reasoning fails, resort to defensive attack.

That you have done no better speaks volumes.

Cheers, my man. Happy hunting elsewhere.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Rick,

You can ask till the cows come home and AndyK will not answer the question or he will give the usual non-responsive answer stooges like him give. I cannot tell you how many times I have asked what law makes me a non-taxpaying, non-US citizen liable to pay an "income tax." Never have received a reply and don't believe I ever will.

There isn't one.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by mrg

There isn't one.

Agreed. Their non-answer says it all!!

I have seen this bandied about on the forum, this reference to ‘special law’. Does anyone have a clue what it is? As no one takes the time to explain the intricacies of just what this special law is - the how, where, what, why and when, has not the law [whatever it is perceived to be] just not required an impossibility and is, void for vagueness because ‘men of common intelligence’ have to guess at its meaning?

Point, 43 - Response from the United States Treasury, Disclosure Officer Cynthia J. Mills that reads: “The internal Revenue Code is not positive law, it is SPECIAL LAW. It applies to specific persons in the United States who CHOOSE to make themselves subject to the requirements of the SPECIAL LAWS in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement with the U.S. Government.” (See exhibit “H”)

"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally et al. v. General Construction Co. 269 U.S 385, 391 (1926). See also Cruikshank supra. U.S. v. De Cadena, 105 F.Supp. 202, 204 (1952), Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939), e Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91(1945), Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, and Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951).

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Andy:

He is not intent on anything but amusing himself by trying to make people waste their time and energy chasing their tales at his will.

Been there done that.

(Am doing it now--dang, he is good!!)

He comprehends exactly.

(I have gained from your clear presentation of facts, both as to facts and method of presentation.)

He does not miss the importance of that at all, (in fact he delights in trying to rub one's nose in the fact), or the fact that "nothing else matters."

He is a willing and willful grifter, and likely makes a living that way.

Now there is substance, finally--admission as to the nature of of any compelling authority--pushing and shoving; "controlling force; irresistable compulsion; a power or impulse so great that it admits no choice of conduct."

Unfortunately, he will persist in "hunting elsewhere" on this board, with now quite redundant "sophomoric rhetoric," failed "non sequitor reasoning," and "defensive attack," so that he can further amuse himself and his tag team cronies, by causing victims of his miscreant sense of humor to chase their own tails.

What you have well demonstrated is, unfortunately, of little remedial consequence to his pathological behavior here.

If he cannot bait you further, he will just move on and continue his twisted little mission regardless.

Thanks for the info, and the expository method you used to present it, I appreciate it.


BTW, Andy:
Thank you sir, may I have another?

[mnchicago]

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.

I agree, mnchicago that ‘pissing matches’ and ‘vitriolic name calling’ serve no purpose at all but merely impede a debate. I thank you very kindly for your words of wisdom.