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

Re: INCOME TAX INDICTMENTS ARE BOGUS

Expand Messages
  • Patrick M
    I think people are OVERCOMPLICATING things. Have we ever been given LEGAL NOTICE that we are a person who has an INCOME TAX LIABILITY or is REQUIRED to file an
    Message 1 of 35 , Dec 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      I think people are OVERCOMPLICATING things.

       

      Have we ever been given LEGAL NOTICE that we are a person who has an INCOME TAX LIABILITY or is REQUIRED to file an income tax return?

       

      26 CFR 31.6001-6   Notice by district director requiring returns, statements, or the keeping of records.

      The district director may require any person, by notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for any of the taxes to which the regulations in this part have application.

      http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=de87314e866de9fe6728f4c7589924f1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:15.0.1.1.1.7.16.6&idno=26

       

      IF NOT, then WHY did we ever REQUEST WITHHOLDING and/or file an income tax return in the first place?

       

      26 CFR 1.1-1…In general, the tax is payable upon the basis of returns rendered by persons liable therefor (subchapter A (sections 6001 and following), chapter 61 of the Code) or at the source of the income by withholding. [rest omitted]
      http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/26cfr1.1-1.htm 

       

      And if we DID, could it be POSSIBLE the court is PRESUMING that we DID SO because we have a KNOWN LEGAL DUTY to do so?

       

      MAXIMS OF LAW

      A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved.

      All things are presumed to be lawfully done and duly performed until the contrary is proved.

      What is not proved and what does not exist are the same; it is not a defect of the law, but of proof.

       

      DESTROY the FOUNDATION & the house will FALL.

       

      Patrick in California

       

      "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus

       

    • rebel382003
      The judicial requirements of Due Process place the burden of proof on the movant to evidence the court has jurisdiction of the question presented in the
      Message 35 of 35 , Mar 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        The judicial requirements of Due Process place the burden of proof on the movant to evidence the court has jurisdiction of the question presented in the pleading. It is also a requirement for the movant to allege and evidence the defendant had a duty beholding to the movant. A couple of cases applying the principals to tax issues include Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 529 (1958)and Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 U.S. 397. Shepardizing the cases, and following the headnote key numbers in the Federal Digest system, can readily locate additional cases.

        Reb
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.