State Qualified Income Taxes
- I don't quite understand the significance of some information that I
Code sections 26 IRC 6361-6365 were repealed Nov. 5, 1990 by Act of
Congress Pub.L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388.
These sections fall under Subchapter E- Collection of State
Individual Income taxes.
I will say this for starters,I'm a bit uninformed in this particular
area of the code and was wondering if anyone out there can explain
what exactly happen after these code sections were repealed.
Perhaps a comment or two on the relationship to a States authority to
administer a State Income tax or what effect this had on the States.
Or in the alternative if any one knows of a good expose that might
touch on the subject, where to find it.
- These particular areas were repealed as unneccessary in the Omnibus
bill of 1990. The statues that you talk about below were repealed
because the statutes related information to the States on how to have
an income tax in the state. The State had to sign with the Federal
Government in order to carry out an income tax. The regulations still
exist as they are part of the ocntract that exists currently with the
states. The Contract starts with an International Treaty, which in
itself is a contract, and the states sign on as a party to the
contract. Those that do not sign on, are not parties and do not have
individual income taxes for that state. ie...Florida, Nevada, Texas,
This information is deadly for state cases on income tax because there
just is no jurisdiction for anyone to bring a case aganst a taxpayer.
If you have a lawyer forget it, you have waived jurisdiction to a
court officer, but if you ask for the delegation order for the state
to bring action, the case will be dropped. The contracts specify that
only the Feds can bring action. The State is only there to audit and
that is their only job. However, the Feds will not step into a state
--- In email@example.com, "makodejure" <mako@f...> wrote:
> I don't quite understand the significance of some information that I
> ran across.
> Code sections 26 IRC 6361-6365 were repealed Nov. 5, 1990 by Act of
> Congress Pub.L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388.
> These sections fall under Subchapter E- Collection of State
> Individual Income taxes.
MessageHi everybody,Please excuse my lack of ability to communicate very well... I'm doing the best I can...The issue that I am fighting or working on here is my getting access to the courts in Idaho without having to "purchase" that access by paying filing fees (I just can't afford to pay them anyway).The Idaho Constitution http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/constretr?sctid=003010118.K specifically states that Justice is not to be for sale or denied... To me, this says that I should not have to purchase access in the form of having to pay a fee... especially to defend myself against another.Under Title 31-3201a http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=310320001A.K it says I have to submit fees for just about any kind of filings if I want access to the courts in Idaho.Under title 31-3220 which I believe is code, (http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=310320020.K) it says that if I am indigent the fees are waivered.From what I see here is a total conflict between the Declaration of Constitutional Rights and Code. Constitution says it is free and the code says I have to pay unless I am indigent.I have already sent to the court an affidavit based on the requirements of 31-3220 but I did not go into exact detail of every debt and so forth. Because I did not lay my total financial records bare to the court in detail, I was denied by this judge to be declared to be indigent.I sent in another motion, this time stating the the judge of a previous case I initiated about a month ago (that is pending currently) where the judge had accepted the same affidavit I had sent to that court, therefore setting a precedent that the affidavit of indigence that I entered was valid. Additionally, I also stated the references of the Idaho Constitution that justice was not for sale (i.e.. that I was required to purchase it). Of course, my motion was denied, the affidavit was ignored, and I was denied a hearing on the issue. I also added in references that I was sovereign and not bound to code that had no affect, Yick Wo... etc.So either my argument was crapola, I pissed of the Judge by not bowing at her feet, I argued the wrong issues, or that my argument was confusing becasue I mixed apples and oranges. So I guess I need to start all over and get your help in doing this the correct way...whatever that is.So how do I fight this battle to make the judges follow the constitution and regain my rightful access without purchase. Should I drop the affidavit and motion to waiver fees as being indigent? Should I focus on the Idaho Constitution aspect? Or should I just bow down to them and place myself at their mercy like a good little slave and give them what they want?My thoughts right now is to hammer the Judge on the Constitution aspect and drop the Indigent argument as they seem to conflict... Can anybody help me in the process or putting together my case?I would appreciate any help in straightening me out on the strategy, what I need to be doing, and what I should not be doing.Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.Lost and confused... LOLGary
- A qualified State income tax is one for which the federal will act as collector, I guess.Somewhere it is stated that all State taxes are income taxes.Has anyone the citation to that observation by the supreme Court ?
My mentor, Ollie Paulson, authored a thing called an affidavit of impecuniosity. It is not an in forma pauperis and the document itself explains why you are not subject to fees. I’ll include the file.
From: krimson3 [mailto:krimson3@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 4:55 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Taking back the courts...
Please excuse my lack of ability to communicate very well... I'm doing the best I can...
The issue that I am fighting or working on here is my getting access to the courts in Idaho without having to "purchase" that access by paying filing fees (I just can't afford to pay them anyway).