Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17599Re: [tips_and_tricks] property tax case

Expand Messages
  • Jake
    Apr 16, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

         > . . . we try to understand the law by reading caselaw.


      I read it to see how courts have ruled on issues before & how they're likely to rule again.  As I've said before, legal theory makes for interesting coffee-table & internet group discussions, but I only care about what works, what doesn't & why.  In the real world things don't always go the way you want & it seems pretty stupid to me to spend time & $$$ on a case that's sure to get dismissed.


         > But what about my circumstance, a private human that has no subtitle E activities.


      So what?  What is your injury?  What remedy or relief are you entitled to?  And what authority is there for you to file suit for remedy or relief?  Saying your rights are not taxable is not a "cause of action".


      ~ ~ ~ 



      --- On Thu, 4/15/10, Cliff Bass <cliff_bass@...> wrote:

      From: Cliff Bass <cliff_bass@...>
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] property tax case
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010, 9:20 PM

       
      Again, another fictional character, a corporation, goes to a municipal court, a political subdivision, which does clearly have venue and also juridiction.  And we try to understand the law by reading caselaw.  But what about my circumstance, a private human that has no subtitle E activities.

      --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Jake <jake_28079@yahoo. com> wrote:

      From: Jake <jake_28079@yahoo. com>
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] property tax case
      To: tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com
      Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:12 PM

       

         > My general cause is that our rights are not taxable, and no law does so.
      A tax on property is not a tax on the right to acquire / own it & the exercise of a right can most assuredly be taxed.
      See, e.g., the oft-cited Steward Machine Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548, 580 (1937):

         ". . . natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. * * * What the individual does in the operation of a business is amenable to taxation just as much as what he owns, at all events if the classification is not tyrannical or arbitrary. "Business is as legitimate an object of the taxing powers as property." Newton v. Atchison, 31 Kan. 151, 154 (per Brewer, J.), 1 Pac. 288. Indeed, ownership itself, as we had occasion to point out the other day, is only a bundle of rights and privileges invested with a single name. Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577. "A state is at liberty, if it pleases, to tax them all collectively, or to separate the faggots and lay the charge distributively. " Ibid.

      ~ ~ ~



    • Show all 22 messages in this topic