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

Re: Trojan Horse buried in Health Care Bill...New IRS Paperwork for You to fill out

Expand Messages
  • lawfulzone
    Even if it were true; The FEDS have no nexus / jurisdiction over a state citizen having failed to apply for a FEIN and receiving no conditional entitlements.
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Even if it were true; The FEDS have no nexus / jurisdiction over a state citizen having failed to apply for a FEIN and receiving no conditional entitlements.
    • John Hill
      RE: If you qualify for these additional requirements and are an individual, you are exempt. If you have several rental properties, you might have a problem
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        RE:
         
        If you qualify for these additional requirements and are an individual, you are exempt.  If you have several rental properties, you might have a problem qualifying, even if you claim to be an individual.

         
         

        The question to be asked of SEC. 2101 is;

        Are you a person or an individual?

        If you're a person you pay
        If you're an individual you're exempted.
         
        REPLY:
         
        Have we forgotten the basics of taxation? An income tax is a tax on specified taxable ACTIVITY, a PRIVILEGE granted by the government. (Rights granted by the Creator cannot be taxed as "privilege").Income derived from "rental property" would be taxed under a direct tax, not under an income tax. Unless the entity is a corporation. But that also can be debated until the cows come home. ALWAYS CONSIDER the SOURCE of the income! The point of this post is, let us not forget the basics of taxation and confuse those who may be new to the group or just getting their hands wet in trying to keep what is rightfully and lawfully theirs from being confiscated by the Infernal Revenue Service. Income tax- A tax on specified taxable ACTIVITY. Direct tax- A tax on property and income derived from property, or a capitation.
         
         
      • Jake
        The biggest problem is that people don t know how to conduct business, separate business from personal & are stuck in the possessive mindset.  Think of little
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 3, 2010
        • 0 Attachment

          The biggest problem is that people don't know how to conduct business, separate business from personal & are stuck in the possessive mindset.  Think of little children fighting over a toy - "mine - mine - mine !!"


          I've worked with people who own rental properties for years & changes to IRS Regulations won't affect them personally because they're smart enough to NOT have the rental property(ies) in their own name.  Personal property in trusts over here, rental property(ies) in an S corp. managed by a CPA over there & you couldn't tie the business to the personal if your life depended on it.


          There is no "one size fits all" way to do it, but when the given situation is analyzed & set up properly, there's no way the IRS can say these people are "engaged in a trade or business".  And a properly operated S corp. pretty much expenses itself out - yes, it has to file tax forms / returns, but the CPA does all that & it has nothing to do with personal.


          ~ ~ ~


        • BOB GREGORY
          *The definitions given below by John Hill are incorrect. It may be inferred that income tax is POSSIBLY a tax on an activity because the Supreme Court ruled
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 3, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            The definitions given below by John Hill are incorrect.  It may be inferred that income tax is POSSIBLY a tax on an activity because the Supreme Court ruled that it is an EXCISE.  An excise can be applied to an ACTIVITY, an EVENT or to a PRIVILEGE.

            About the only thing the 16th Amendment DID do was to allow taxation of income without regard to the source.  Therefore income derived from rental of real estate is constitutionally taxable by an income tax.  (The reason the 16th Amendment came about in the first place was to keep income from rental of real estate being considered a direct tax.  See
            Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895))


            Congress already had the power to tax incomes, according to the Supreme Court.  The real question is what IS income?  The Supreme Court says that it is "corporate profit" as it determined in cases about the 1909 Corporation tax, and it continued to say that income means the same thing in all the income tax laws as it does/did in the 1909 law.  It has further said that Congress cannot define or re-define income because the definition of "income" became a matter for the Supreme Court when the term was used in the 16th Amendment and became a part of the Constitution.  Congress has tried to get around this ruling by defining "gross income" instead of "income."

            The Supreme Court has also ruled that the right to work is a basic right which cannot be taxed.  So if income tax is an excise, what activity, event or privilege does it tax?

            This addition to the health care act and other changes in tax laws are only about different ways to misapply taxation.  The problem is that the IRS has the backing of Congress because they want to take all the money possible from people and the backing of the DOJ which works for the president, who also wants to take all the money possible AND the backing of the Courts who are paid by the government and for whom there is no downside to perpetuating the fraud.  These courts do not recognize key Supreme Court rulings which they are bound to follow by precedent rules.  The latter day Supreme Court also plays the game by refusing to hear any cases from lower courts that would require it to rule on basic issues which have already been resolved by earlier Supreme Courts and become stare decisis.

            ===================================   

            On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 4:47 PM, John Hill <otoman@...> wrote:
             


            REPLY:
             
            Have we forgotten the basics of taxation? An income tax is a tax on specified taxable ACTIVITY, a PRIVILEGE granted by the government. (Rights granted by the Creator cannot be taxed as "privilege").Income derived from "rental property" would be taxed under a direct tax, not under an income tax. Unless the entity is a corporation. But that also can be debated until the cows come home. ALWAYS CONSIDER the SOURCE of the income! The point of this post is, let us not forget the basics of taxation and confuse those who may be new to the group or just getting their hands wet in trying to keep what is rightfully and lawfully theirs from being confiscated by the Infernal Revenue Service. Income tax- A tax on specified taxable ACTIVITY. Direct tax- A tax on property and income derived from property, or a capitation.
             
             


          • John Hill
            Quotations form Bob s post: The definitions given below by John Hill are incorrect. It may be inferred that income tax is POSSIBLY a tax on an activity
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 4, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
               Quotations form Bob's post:

              "The definitions given below by John Hill are incorrect.  It may be inferred that income tax is POSSIBLY a tax on an activity because the Supreme Court ruled that it is an EXCISE.  An excise can be applied to an ACTIVITY, an EVENT or to a PRIVILEGE.

              About the only thing the 16th Amendment DID do was to allow taxation of income without regard to the source.  Therefore income derived from rental of real estate is constitutionally taxable by an income tax.  (The reason the 16th Amendment came about in the first place was to keep income from rental of real estate being considered a direct tax.  See
              Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895))"

              The Pollock case was considering an "income tax law" written by Congress. This income tax law was to be imposed also upon the common US citizen. Here are excerpts from the decision.

              "...Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes

              ; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes ..."

              and;

              “… it is apparent (1) that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the constitution and those who adopted it; (2) that, under the state system of taxation, all taxes on  real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxesPollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 574 (1895)

              and;

              “... A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution.... “

              “We are of opinion that the law in question, so far as it levies a tax on the rents or income of real estate, is in violation of the constitution, and is invalidPollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157U.S. 429, 583 (1895)

               

              and;

              “...We have unanimously held in this case that, so far as this law operates on the receipts from municipal bonds , it cannot be sustained, because it is a tax on the powers of the States, and on their instrumentalities to borrow money, and consequently repugnant to the Constitution. ...it follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property equally exists as to the revenue therefrom. Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution. In England, we do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a direct tax. In Dowell's History of Taxation and Taxes in England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a direct tax. Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 586 (1895)

              and, from the supporting opinion of Justice Fields in this case:

               

              “I am of opinion that the whole law of 1894 should be declared void, and without any binding force,-that part which relates to the tax on the rents, profits, or income from real estate, that is, so much as constitutes part of the direct tax, because not imposed by the rule of apportionment according to the representation of the states, as prescribed by the constitution; and that part which imposes a tax upon the bonds and securities of the several states, and upon the bonds and securities of their municipal bodies, and upon on the salaries of judges of the courts of the United States, as being beyond the power of congress; and that part which lays duties, imposts, and excises, as void in not providing for the uniformity required by the constitution in such cases”  Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 607 (1895)

               

              It appears to me that the court is clear that a tax on real property, and income derived there from, falls into the category of "direct taxation." If you continue with further research into this case, you should find that the Pollock case is very firm on "considering the source" of the income. The reason for this is simply because the Constitution demands the source to be considered. The Sixteenth Amendment surely does say that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived, without considering apportionment. In other words, Congress has the power to do such under an "INDIRECT TAX." Keep in mind that the sixteenth amend. does not say WHO or WHAT the recipient of the tax is! Pollock clarified that if the recipient of the tax is a common citizen, then the common citizen cannot be taxed on his income from rental property, under an income tax (indirect tax). That is why the Pollock court struck down only the section of the INCOME tax they were considering. That section being a tax on income from property, upon the common man, which WAS NOT APPORTIONED according to the precepts of the Constitution. The rest of the income tax law of 1895 that was upheld applied only to those that derived special privilege form the state. In other words, the court clarified that the owning of property by the common man is a right granted by the very nature of things and that that income cannot be taxed under an "INCOME TAX." Again in other words, the owning of property by the common man, and income derived there from cannot be taxed as a "privilege" under an "INCOME TAX". IT IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE! AM-N

            • BOB GREGORY
              *John Hill and I are in agreement on this, appearances to the contrary. The drafters of the 16th Amendment were crafty in the way they made the amendment
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 4, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                John Hill and I are in agreement on this, appearances to the contrary.

                The drafters of the 16th Amendment were crafty in the way they made the amendment intentionally vague.  To this day, even the IRS cites the 16th Amendment as providing the basis for the income tax, though it does not.   As John points out, the Pollock court ruled or commented that "...
                a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes ..."
                   Therefore an income tax on an individual is a direct tax and may not be imposed by the federal government without apportionment.

                So what could the Supreme Court do about this?  It made a series of determinations to the effect that: 


                The 16th Amendment gave Congress no power of taxation that it did not previously have.  BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 US 1 (1916), PECK v LOWE, 247 US 165 (1918)

                Nor did it extend taxation to any new subjects of taxation.   BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926)

                That, in the corporation tax act of 1909 (passed before the 16th Amendment but in contemplation of it) the tax was not on income but on the privilege of being a corporation (only a federal corporation, but that has been corrupted).  U S v. WHITRIDGE, 231 U.S. 144, 147 (1913)

                The the INCOME of the corporation was used as a measure to determine the amount of tax owed. STRATTON’S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v HOWBERT, 231 US 399 (1913)

                That the term INCOME in all subsequent income tax acts has the same meaning as that determined with regard to the 1909 corporation tax.  MERCHANTS’ LOAN & TRUST CO. v SMIETANKA, 255 US 509, 519 (1921)

                That Congress by legislation may not change the meaning of the term Income.  EISNER v MACOMBER, 252 US 189, 206 (1920)

                That "Direct Taxes bear upon persons, upon possession and the enjoyment of rights; Indirect Taxes are levied upon the happening of an event."  Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41, 47 (1900).

                That  “The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions..."  Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746 (1884)

                That  “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 US 105, at 113; 63 S Ct at 875; 87 L Ed at 1298 (1943).

                That “Nothing can be clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state through a majority made up from the other states.” Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429, 582 (1895)

                That under the 16th Amendment the Congress cannot define and tax as income anything that that was not previously taxable as income.  TAFT v. BOWERS, 278 U.S. 470, 481 (1929)

                That "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."  Helvering v. Edison Brothers' Stores 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943)

                And the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that "...the Legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right, but it does have the power to declare as privileges and tax as such for state revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right..."   Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720, 733 (1925)

                An income tax is an EXCISE when it is applied to a privilege, but when it is applied to a person and his property of any kind, including earnings, it is a DIRECT tax and thus unconstitutional unless apportioned.

                An indirect tax is one which can be avoided.  The only way to avoid income tax as administered by the IRS is to have no earnings (or to have earnings below a stated threshold level).  About 46% of workers in the U.S. fall in this category.  But that was not the intention of the Supreme Court in ruling that people have a right to their own labor. 

                The country was able to operate very successfully for 129 years without using an income tax (actually much longer, up until 1939 in practical terms).  The income tax and its maladministration is a mechanism for requiring the people to pay the huge taxes which come about in the form of debt to the Federal Reserve and in the form of inflation caused by the Federal Reserve through fiat currency.   


                The problem with the income tax as currently administered by the IRS and backed by the DOJ and the courts is NOT with the LAW, which makes it clear that an income tax on a private individual is a direct tax which must be apportioned, with with maladministration, collusion and enforcement through fear.

                The question then becomes what the people can do about it?  The answer lies basically in the Declaration of Independence, which is equally applicable to the present government of the United States as it was to the government of Britain under George III.   Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and others feared and forecast that the government would become oppressive.  They were "no guts, no glory" guys.  If the American people of today do not muster the guts to just refuse en masse to file income tax returns and refuse to pay income taxes they do not owe, then they will continue to suffer from more and more repressive taxation.  It cannot be done by a few brave individuals because the government has the power to crush them one by one.  It must be done by multiple millions of people who pledge their "lives, their f-rtunes and their s-cred honor" to attack the problem and win.

                ================================           



                On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:41 AM, John Hill <otoman@...> wrote:


                It appears to me that the court is clear that a tax on real property, and income derived there from, falls into the category of "direct taxation." If you continue with further research into this case, you should find that the Pollock case is very firm on "considering the source" of the income. The reason for this is simply because the Constitution demands the source to be considered. The Sixteenth Amendment surely does say that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived, without considering apportionment. In other words, Congress has the power to do such under an "INDIRECT TAX." Keep in mind that the sixteenth amend. does not say WHO or WHAT the recipient of the tax is! Pollock clarified that if the recipient of the tax is a common citizen, then the common citizen cannot be taxed on his income from rental property, under an income tax (indirect tax). That is why the Pollock court struck down only the section of the INCOME tax they were considering. That section being a tax on income from property, upon the common man, which WAS NOT APPORTIONED according to the precepts of the Constitution. The rest of the income tax law of 1895 that was upheld applied only to those that derived special privilege form the state. In other words, the court clarified that the owning of property by the common man is a right granted by the very nature of things and that that income cannot be taxed under an "INCOME TAX." Again in other words, the owning of property by the common man, and income derived there from cannot be taxed as a "privilege" under an "INCOME TAX". IT IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE! AM-N


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