Irs

[cbi0090]

The problem lies that here in the US we are taught that our whole way of life is centered on the notion of being "fair", a noble cause but a nefarious one because it is a man-made concept and one subject to perspective. Now if I went to the store and bought a TV for $500 and someone followed right behind me and got it for $400 then I was told the reason he got it at his price was something that sounded like double-talk, legaleze, or pig-latin, I'd conclude that something was fishy and essentaily "unfair". I'd be upset but unable to argue cause I just couldn't understand their rationale, so what do I do? Call them an SOB and walk out? So,I just tell them to take the TV back in protest but they point out that they don't take returns, so I can't get my money back. So I yell a little louder and tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine. Next, thing I know I've got a police officer telling me to quiet down or leave. I tell him I want my money back; he arrests me; I bail myself out and get a lawyer; he sends me a bill; now the store going on the offensive and saying I threatened them; I talk to my lawyer and he sends me another bill; it drags on; I get lots more bills, and so and so on. All because the store could not explain themselves in terms that the average person can understand, leaving me to believe I was being cheated. This is the basic problem with the IRS.
I have a small business (engineering related BTW). I have to pay a hefty amount to someone to do my taxes and I'm a person whose always been considered to be rather good with numbers. My business and personal returns combined probably consist of at least 120 pages; it's a small book. This doesn not include the backup material. I have to believe my CPA is doing them correctly because I wouldn't have any way of knowing otherwise. If the IRS questioned any of it, I would have to bring him along and just sit back and listen, I wouldn't have a clue.
Last year, I took on employees. BIG MISTAKE!!! The paperword increased ten-fold.
Now I'm selling my company to a much larger one who has the spare resourses to mess with that crap.
I don't have a problem with paying taxes, I believe everyone should. But, our system has gotten insane and I suspect "unfair".

 

[Ravi]

Find a new accountant...you are being ripped off.

 

[Contumacious]

I merely pointed out that your "legal" citation was and is totally irrelevant since it was -- in terms of serving as any kind of precedent -- vitiated, gutted, revoked and rendered moot when the Constitution was Amended thereby overruling the case you cited, y

That is true only in your sheeple brain:

The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax

Every feeble-minded asswipe (a group you could Chair) who has ever articulated the sub-moronic notion that the 16th Amendment wasn't validly "ratified" has lost. If you bring that as a basis to defend a charge of tax-evasion nowadays in fact, you could be subject (properly so) to criminal charges or at least civil penalties for a frivolous legal pleading.

The 16th Amendment needs to be repealed, arguably. But that's another issue entirely.

Only fucking total whacked-out assholes like YOU maintain that it isn't part of the Constitution. It is. And when it DID get ratified, schmuck, it effectively orverrule the SCOTUS case you proudly displayed.

Douchebags like you need a tune up.

Don't worry asswipe, your food stamp allocation is safe.

Scumbags federal judges won't look a the certified evidence. After all they have sworn to defend and support the welfare state.

.

 

[Liability]

That is true only in your sheeple brain:

The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax

Every feeble-minded asswipe (a group you could Chair) who has ever articulated the sub-moronic notion that the 16th Amendment wasn't validly "ratified" has lost. If you bring that as a basis to defend a charge of tax-evasion nowadays in fact, you could be subject (properly so) to criminal charges or at least civil penalties for a frivolous legal pleading.

The 16th Amendment needs to be repealed, arguably. But that's another issue entirely.

Only fucking total whacked-out assholes like YOU maintain that it isn't part of the Constitution. It is. And when it DID get ratified, schmuck, it effectively orverrule the SCOTUS case you proudly displayed.

Douchebags like you need a tune up.

Don't worry asswipe, your food stamp allocation is safe.

Scumbags federal judges won't look a the certified evidence. After all they have sworn to defend and support the welfare state.

.

No part of your asshole post made sense dickface.

I am not on foodstamps. That's reserved for the poor unfortuante liberals and total fucking losers like you.

And the evidence was simply never there for your douchebag claim that the 16th wasn't validly ratified.

You making shit up is nothing new.

I mean just look at the sub-moronic sigline shit you have. You are totally and tragically retarded. What a fucking tragic waste of oxygen you continue to always be.

 

[Contumacious]

Every feeble-minded asswipe (a group you could Chair) who has ever articulated the sub-moronic notion that the 16th Amendment wasn't validly "ratified" has lost. If you bring that as a basis to defend a charge of tax-evasion nowadays in fact, you could be subject (properly so) to criminal charges or at least civil penalties for a frivolous legal pleading.

The 16th Amendment needs to be repealed, arguably. But that's another issue entirely.

Only fucking total whacked-out assholes like YOU maintain that it isn't part of the Constitution. It is. And when it DID get ratified, schmuck, it effectively orverrule the SCOTUS case you proudly displayed.

Douchebags like you need a tune up.

Don't worry asswipe, your food stamp allocation is safe.

Scumbags federal judges won't look a the certified evidence. After all they have sworn to defend and support the welfare state.

.

No part of your asshole post made sense dickface.

I am not on foodstamps. That's reserved for the poor unfortuante liberals and total fucking losers like you.

And the evidence was simply never there for your douchebag claim that the 16th wasn't validly ratified.

You making shit up is nothing new.

I mean just look at the sub-moronic sigline shit you have. You are totally and tragically retarded. What a fucking tragic waste of oxygen you continue to always be.

Excuse me dingleberry, if you are not on welfare why are you defending a program for "unfortunate liberals"?

,

 

[Liability]

Don't worry asswipe, your food stamp allocation is safe.

Scumbags federal judges won't look a the certified evidence. After all they have sworn to defend and support the welfare state.

.

No part of your asshole post made sense dickface.

I am not on foodstamps. That's reserved for the poor unfortuante liberals and total fucking losers like you.

And the evidence was simply never there for your douchebag claim that the 16th wasn't validly ratified.

You making shit up is nothing new.

I mean just look at the sub-moronic sigline shit you have. You are totally and tragically retarded. What a fucking tragic waste of oxygen you continue to always be.

Excuse me dingleberry, if you are not on welfare why are you defending a program for "unfortunate liberals"?

,

There is no excuse for scum like you, shitstain.

I am not on welfare and have no need of it. Unlike you, ya shitforbrain pussy, I am a conservative and I reject the majority of these "social" programs -- even while I am content to make some appropriate concessions for those truly in need.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that the 16th Amendment was ratified. Good God Almighty, you were totally deprived when the brains got doled out you poor retarded douchebag.

,


;

 

[slackjawed]

It is unethical for any man to tax another man's home to fund his social agenda. Friends don't do that, your enemies will. - John Taft

 

[Liability]

It is unethical for any man to tax another man's home to fund his social agenda. Friends don't do that, your enemies will. - John Taft

The actual legitimate purposes of "taxation" is very limited.

In a properly functioning Representative Constitutional Republic, any other uses to which such taxes may be put would only be authorized by a Constitutional Amendment, in most cases.

 

[Ame®icano]

Of course, the IRS should be reviewed and then promptly abolished.

SCOTUS ruled that the 1st Income Tax Law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Justice Field stated:

"If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness."

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY., 15 S. Ct. 673, 157 U.S. 429 (U.S. 04/08/1895)

.

In 1895, the 16th amendment had not yet been passed, much less ratified. That came in 1913.

So, until that time, the IRS probably WAS a creation of an illegal Act by Congress.

But since the 16th Amendment has since BEEN ratified, what the fuck is the point of citing a SCOTUS decision that talks about the Constitution as it existed BEFORE that relevant ratification? The 16th Amendment itself overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust.

If ignorance is bliss, Confusedatious resides in Nirvana.

Since the passing of the 16th, we have an income tax. I believe that the Pollock v Farmer's loan decision created a precedent that even congress had to meet certain constitutional requirements in the legislation that they pass. I think that decision caused congress to pursue constitutional amendments, like the 16th, in order to meet that requirement.
As with other constitutional amendments, it is difficult to repeal the 16th once they are passed.
The fact is, there are laws, and then there are LAWS. The difference comes in the administration of the law once it is passed. Some laws, even though they remain on the books, are seldom enforced. For example, there are laws in several states against adultery with serious penalties possible, yet they are seldom enforced. here in Arizona, there remains a law on the books that horse thieves caught in the act can be hung on the spot, imagine if someone tried that today!
We all know that the IRS has 'special powers'. Seizing bank accounts, real property, and on and on.
What I am asking is if we should review these powers. Obviously, the American people did not 'rise up', as Mr. Stock seemed convinced they would, as indicated in his "manifesto".
Still, is there enough disapproval that we should worry about future nut-cases following his lead? Should we therefore review the power and enforcement methods of the IRS?
Is that simply giving an undeserved voice to a common criminal?

16th was added to the Constitution without being properly ratified by the States.

 

[Liability]

In 1895, the 16th amendment had not yet been passed, much less ratified. That came in 1913.

So, until that time, the IRS probably WAS a creation of an illegal Act by Congress.

But since the 16th Amendment has since BEEN ratified, what the fuck is the point of citing a SCOTUS decision that talks about the Constitution as it existed BEFORE that relevant ratification? The 16th Amendment itself overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust.

If ignorance is bliss, Confusedatious resides in Nirvana.

Since the passing of the 16th, we have an income tax. I believe that the Pollock v Farmer's loan decision created a precedent that even congress had to meet certain constitutional requirements in the legislation that they pass. I think that decision caused congress to pursue constitutional amendments, like the 16th, in order to meet that requirement.
As with other constitutional amendments, it is difficult to repeal the 16th once they are passed.
The fact is, there are laws, and then there are LAWS. The difference comes in the administration of the law once it is passed. Some laws, even though they remain on the books, are seldom enforced. For example, there are laws in several states against adultery with serious penalties possible, yet they are seldom enforced. here in Arizona, there remains a law on the books that horse thieves caught in the act can be hung on the spot, imagine if someone tried that today!
We all know that the IRS has 'special powers'. Seizing bank accounts, real property, and on and on.
What I am asking is if we should review these powers. Obviously, the American people did not 'rise up', as Mr. Stock seemed convinced they would, as indicated in his "manifesto".
Still, is there enough disapproval that we should worry about future nut-cases following his lead? Should we therefore review the power and enforcement methods of the IRS?
Is that simply giving an undeserved voice to a common criminal?

16th was added to the Constitution without being properly ratified by the States.

The oft-repeated claim that the 16th Amendment "wasn't properly ratified" is just plain silly. It is also untrue.

It was ratified and that is settled law.

The fucking thing is what it is and that means we have to deal with it, until and unless we repeal it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Since the passing of the 16th, we have an income tax. I believe that the Pollock v Farmer's loan decision created a precedent that even congress had to meet certain constitutional requirements in the legislation that they pass. I think that decision caused congress to pursue constitutional amendments, like the 16th, in order to meet that requirement.
As with other constitutional amendments, it is difficult to repeal the 16th once they are passed.
The fact is, there are laws, and then there are LAWS. The difference comes in the administration of the law once it is passed. Some laws, even though they remain on the books, are seldom enforced. For example, there are laws in several states against adultery with serious penalties possible, yet they are seldom enforced. here in Arizona, there remains a law on the books that horse thieves caught in the act can be hung on the spot, imagine if someone tried that today!
We all know that the IRS has 'special powers'. Seizing bank accounts, real property, and on and on.
What I am asking is if we should review these powers. Obviously, the American people did not 'rise up', as Mr. Stock seemed convinced they would, as indicated in his "manifesto".
Still, is there enough disapproval that we should worry about future nut-cases following his lead? Should we therefore review the power and enforcement methods of the IRS?
Is that simply giving an undeserved voice to a common criminal?

16th was added to the Constitution without being properly ratified by the States.

The oft-repeated claim that the 16th Amendment "wasn't properly ratified" is just plain silly. It is also untrue.

It was ratified and that is settled law.

The fucking thing is what it is and that means we have to deal with it, until and unless we repeal it.

You don't read much, eh?

 

[Contumacious]

No part of your asshole post made sense dickface.

I am not on foodstamps. That's reserved for the poor unfortuante liberals and total fucking losers like you.

And the evidence was simply never there for your douchebag claim that the 16th wasn't validly ratified.

You making shit up is nothing new.

I mean just look at the sub-moronic sigline shit you have. You are totally and tragically retarded. What a fucking tragic waste of oxygen you continue to always be.

Excuse me dingleberry, if you are not on welfare why are you defending a program for "unfortunate liberals"?

,

There is no excuse for scum like you, shitstain.

I am not on welfare and have no need of it. Unlike you, ya shitforbrain pussy, I am a conservative and I reject the majority of these "social" programs -- even while I am content to make some appropriate concessions for those truly in need.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that the 16th Amendment was ratified. Good God Almighty, you were totally deprived when the brains got doled out you poor retarded douchebag.

,


;

Excuse me head cheese, if you are not on welfare why are you defending a program for "unfortunate liberals"?

Either the federal government has the authority to finance and operate ALL wealth transfer programs or it has no authority at all.

.

 

[Liability]

16th was added to the Constitution without being properly ratified by the States.

The oft-repeated claim that the 16th Amendment "wasn't properly ratified" is just plain silly. It is also untrue.

It was ratified and that is settled law.

The fucking thing is what it is and that means we have to deal with it, until and unless we repeal it.

You don't read much, eh?

Apparently more than you do and -- unlike you -- I actually comprehend those "word" things. It's a great tool, really. You should look into it.

Tell ya what, chuckles. Cite me one case where a Court has made a finding that the 16th Amendment was NOT validly or properly (or at all) ratified.

Now, try to understand. My request does not seek some tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy web-site arguments about the issue. I have heard all that blather before. Not interested in the re-hashing of old failed claims.

Cite any COURT determination which makes the legal finding -- as a basis for the ultimate ruling of the case -- that the "alleged" 16th Amendment ratification actually failed.

 

[slackjawed]

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:[23]

1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
16. California (January 31, 1911)
17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
31. New York (July 12, 1911)
32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
36. Delaware (February 3, 1913)

Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:

37. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911

The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:

1. Connecticut
2. Rhode Island
3. Utah

The following states never took up the proposed amendment:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Virginia
3. Florida

 

[Liability]

Excuse me dingleberry, if you are not on welfare why are you defending a program for "unfortunate liberals"?

,

There is no excuse for scum like you, shitstain.

I am not on welfare and have no need of it. Unlike you, ya shitforbrain pussy, I am a conservative and I reject the majority of these "social" programs -- even while I am content to make some appropriate concessions for those truly in need.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that the 16th Amendment was ratified. Good God Almighty, you were totally deprived when the brains got doled out you poor retarded douchebag.

,


;

Excuse me head cheese, if you are not on welfare why are you defending a program for "unfortunate liberals"?

Your incredibly stupid question, douchebag, was already answered. I recognize that your vastly limited intellect probably can't assist you in grasping that fact. So go get a non-retarded adult to help you out, shitstain.

Either the federal government has the authority to finance and operate ALL wealth transfer programs or it has no authority at all.

.

A simplistic idiot like you will be unable to grasp that you have conflated very different concepts here, ya bombastic simple-minded douchebag.

Taking ANY of my earned income is a wealth transfer. It goes from me to the Federal Treasury. A transfer. The U.S. Government, by virtue of the 16th Amendment, has that authority.

What they are legally and Constitutionally permitted to do with the monies they collect and place in the Treasury is a different matter.

But this is all above your capacity for understanding. So, why not just go play in traffic, now, smegma-breath?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I'd like to know what the fucktard's problem was.

His beef was that he couldn't get away with multiple attempts over the years to hide he and his wife's unreported income.

His resentment and jealousy of others who he felt did and were getting away with this illegal activity fueled his rage even further.

This dude was a sick puppy, you should read and analyze his moronic diatribe in its entirety.

 

[Contumacious]

It is unethical for any man to tax another man's home to fund his social agenda. Friends don't do that, your enemies will. - John Taft

It is also criminal.

But "compassionate conservatives" like Lie-ability do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. The fuckers believe that fedgov has the authority to steal and confiscate in order to finance his pet projects.

.

 

[slackjawed]

It is unethical for any man to tax another man's home to fund his social agenda. Friends don't do that, your enemies will. - John Taft

It is also criminal.

But "compassionate conservatives" like Lie-ability do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. The fuckers believe that fedgov has the authority to steal and confiscate in order to finance his pet projects.

.

Well, in fairness, it is no longer criminal as the law was changed to support it.

 

[Contumacious]

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

 

[slackjawed]

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

If the Government printing office, and the congressional record records the ratification of the 16th amendment, AND the lawsuit against the person that was making the claim that it was never ratified was upheld, then it seems it WAS ratified.

The claim that it wasn't ratified puts you in the same school of thought as the twoofers....