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

Fw: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions

Expand Messages
  • Greg Knapp
    Is their any truth to this concern that if a person is named in ALL CAPS, that person is now a corporation, and the real human being is some kind of trustee of
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 31, 2005
      Is their any truth to this concern that if a person is named in ALL CAPS, that person is now a corporation, and the real human being is some kind of trustee of the ALL CAPS ENTITY NAMED?
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: jm367@...
      Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:33 AM
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions

      Well, what is the nature of this juristic person ?
      Is it a form of business enterprise ?  In the tax laws an individual is a form of business enterprise, which would be a juristic person like a corporation.. 
      Is this legal creation what they refer to as "citizenship" ?  In the privacy act the term individual means a citizen of the United States.
       
      There are many sorts of citizens of the United States.  There was certainly no juristic person implied in citizen of the United States until after the Maternity Act. 
       
      I don't think we are dealing with a presumption.  Is the presumption that it exists ?  Or is the presumption that you can be compelled to answer in the name and behalf of this juristic person ?  Or is the presumption that you have volunteered to act in the name and behalf of this jurisdtic person and therefore are obliged to answer in its name and behalf ?
       
      A while back, I was considering the part of the constitution which forbids any religious test as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States.  This provision traces back to the Corporation Act.
      It seems to me any form of business enterprise constitutes a Public Trust.
      It seems to me citizenship constitutes an Office.  The original 13th amendment stripped those who violated it of the Office or Public Trust of citizen of the United States.
      Yet the supreme court has allowed religious tests to be applied to immigrants, although so far as I know this has never been challenged by Article VI.
      I personally have a religious objection to witnessing to the existence of a juristic person with a name which sounds like my name.
       

    • Dave Miner
      None, although you will hear (here and elsewhere) tons of undocumented speculation, both logical and illogical, alleging its truth. All this speculation
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 1, 2005
        None, although you will hear (here and elsewhere) tons of undocumented speculation, both logical and illogical, alleging its truth.  All this speculation depends on some secret agreement or contract into which you entered when you signed or verbally agreed to some unknown agreement or contract with hidden clauses and requirements.  Yet anyone who understands contract law knows that no contract with hidden clauses or conditions can stand up under legal scrutiny.  Contracts, unnamed or otherwise, that contain hidden clauses or unknown conditions are clear examples of fraud.  So even if these unknown agreements or unknown contracts exist, they are unenforceable on you or me.
         
        No corporation can exist unless there are forms filed and they must be a mater of public record.  And no one can be made a trustee of anything, fictitious or otherwise, without knowingly entering into a trustee agreement.
         
        Yours in financial freedom,
         
        Dave Miner
         
         


        From: Greg Knapp [mailto:gregoryknapp@...]
        Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:09 AM
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Fw: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions

        Is their any truth to this concern that if a person is named in ALL CAPS, that person is now a corporation, and the real human being is some kind of trustee of the ALL CAPS ENTITY NAMED?
      • Nick
        People misunderstand the ALL CAPS argument. The Answer is not an easy one, let me try and explain it as best as I can. In Tax Law,there are certain
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
          People misunderstand the ALL CAPS argument. The Answer is not an easy
          one, let me try and explain it as best as I can.

          In Tax Law,there are certain presumptions that take place and if not
          rebutted, they will stand as fact. The first presumption is that you
          work for federal "wages" under section 3401 and 3121 or, you have
          income that is Federally connected income which is credited to your
          Social Security account. If these are not rebutted, the next
          presumption is at 5 usc 552(a)(13) which if you look it up, please
          do, it says that if you are an "individual entitled to receive
          immediate or deferred retirement benefits under ANY retirement
          program of the Government of the United States (including survivor
          benefits)..." you are federal personell. So, if you are ENTITLED to
          recieve benefits under Social Security, which is a retirement program
          under the United States, then you are considered Federal Personell.
          These benefits are not just retirement benefits, but also
          Unemployement, Medicare and other social programs under the Social
          Security umbrella.

          Guess what, if you are federal Personell, are you not considered
          taxable? Ok...lets go on...it gets worse.

          There is no money in the Social Security trust account is there? No.
          So, why is the trust even used? Why not just scrap the trust part?
          Because trust law is a weapon. IT IS A WEAPON! There are trustees of
          the Social Security trust and there are beneficiaries. There are also
          grantors. You, are the grantor when you sign the SS form. You
          contract into their little scheme. You are also, the beneficiary or
          have rights to beneficial interest in Social Security if you have
          been paying into the system, correct? So the Trustees are employees
          of the United States who act as an interested third party to the
          action.

          What happens in trust law? The grantor/beneficiary after contracting
          in, loses all legal ownership rights. The Grantor/beneficiary now has
          only beneficial interest in property. Trust me, one does not want to
          be here. Why? The Attorney General, in charge of property in the US
          under the trading with the Enemy act has legal title to your
          property. Proof?

          26 C.F.R. 303.1-2 concering taxes under the trading with the enemy
          act...

          "Federal employment taxes are applicable with respect to wages paid
          to a person not a regular Government employee, permanent or
          temporary, for services immediately connected with the operation of
          an enterprise under CONTROL of the Attorney General such as might be
          rendered to a private operator."

          This is the tie into the trading with the Enemy act. When one works,
          is he not paid....FEDERAL WAGES? He certainly is not paid PRIVATE
          SECTOR WAGES is he?

          If these presumptions that I have laid out are not refuted, this is
          where you will end up. If you want to learn how this whole thing
          operates, read 26 USC sections 671-677. Specifically how one gives up
          their labor, 1.671-2 in exchange for being "Part of" the trust.

          You the HUMAN are not a corporation, you are made liable under the
          code for your "PART OF THE TRUST" when your part of the trust has
          TRUST INCOME. Your part of the trust is what is in ALL CAPS not you
          the human being. Which is why the argument that is laid out in court
          is Frivolous. Yet, you are liable under section 7203 for filing and
          paying the tax due on the trust income being generated via section
          671 as being the fiduciary of the trust. If you don't believe me, ask
          yourself why the definition of INCOME is in section 643 relating to
          trust income?

          I hope that helps. Its a complicated issue, but rebut the
          presumptions and you never get there. I would get Pete Hendriksons
          book Cracking the code at Losthorizons.com There is a procedure for
          rebutting these presumptions.

          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Knapp"
          <gregoryknapp@c...> wrote:
          > Is their any truth to this concern that if a person is named in ALL
          CAPS, that person is now a corporation, and the real human being is
          some kind of trustee of the ALL CAPS ENTITY NAMED?
        • John Wilde
          No. It s a crock. g day John Wilde
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
            No.  It's a crock.

            g'day
            John Wilde

            Greg Knapp wrote:
            Is their any truth to this concern that if a person is named in ALL CAPS, that person is now a corporation, and the real human being is some kind of trustee of the ALL CAPS ENTITY NAMED?
            ----- Original Message -----

          • Dave Miner
            Nick -- Excellent and detailed reply. Only problem is you never addressed the ALL CAPs issue, and you are wrong about the trust. There is no SS trust, and
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
              Nick --

              Excellent and detailed reply. Only problem is you never addressed the ALL
              CAPs issue, and you are wrong about the trust. There is no SS trust, and
              never has been. Lots of politicians use the words because they are trying
              to reassure We The People. But the original Act specifically stated that SS
              was a plain and simple tax with a plain and simple welfare benefit, and that
              the SS revenues went straight into the General Fund of the Congress. We
              have been lied to all these years. There is no SS trust fund. There are no
              SS trustees. There never has been.

              Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, among others, have both given long and detailed
              speeches about this, but the media totally ignores them.

              But you are absolutely correct about the presumptions. And everyone
              entitled to receive SS benefits is presumed to be a federal employee
              entitled to be taxed by the so-called income tax. Unless that presumption
              is rebutted.

              The problem about rebutting is the IRS Reconstruction Act of 1998. Before
              that Act, rebutting was a fairly simple matter of documenting a bunch of
              court cases and legal references. I did thousands of these rebuttal letters
              and successfully got hundreds of people permanently free from the IRS. But
              since the Act, the IRS is allowed to presume that its files on you are
              correct. As a result of these presumptions being allowed, even mandated, by
              the law, then letters rebutting the presumptions simply do not work anymore.

              Now, when you write a letter challenging anything about the IRS, its
              activities against you and its files concerning you, the IRS is allowed to
              ignore your challenges and presume its records are accurate and its
              procedures valid.

              I still write hundreds of letters, but I cannot get people free from the IRS
              based on letters. Now I have to go through the very laborious process of
              obtaining and decoding the Individual Master Files of other related files
              and I have to force the IRS to change the entries in those files. Instead
              of two or three well-documented letters involving 3-5 hours, now I have a
              year-long process involving 80 hours.

              I still get my clients free from the IRS, but simply challenging
              presumptions doesn't work anymore.

              Yours in financial freedom,

              Dave Miner
              www.IRx-Solutions.com


              -----Original Message-----
              From: Nick [mailto:nickster97@...]
              Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 6:17 AM
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions



              People misunderstand the ALL CAPS argument. The Answer is not an easy one,
              let me try and explain it as best as I can.

              In Tax Law,there are certain presumptions that take place and if not
              rebutted, they will stand as fact. The first presumption is that you work
              for federal "wages" under section 3401 and 3121 or, you have income that is
              Federally connected income which is credited to your Social Security
              account. If these are not rebutted, the next presumption is at 5 usc
              552(a)(13) which if you look it up, please do, it says that if you are an
              "individual entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits
              under ANY retirement program of the Government of the United States
              (including survivor benefits)..." you are federal personell. So, if you are
              ENTITLED to recieve benefits under Social Security, which is a retirement
              program under the United States, then you are considered Federal Personell.
            • Carrol
              Wow - that s just like saying Because I said so . If it is all a crock, why is there this provision in the IRM regarding the 1040 form: IRM 9.4.4.2.1.3
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
                Wow - that's just like saying "Because I said so".

                If it is all a crock, why is there this provision in the
                IRM regarding the 1040 form:

                "IRM 9.4.4.2.1.3 (01-30-2001)
                The Individual Master File
                2..  The returns filed include Income Tax Forms 1040, 1040A, 1040NR, 1040C,
                1040SS, 1040PR, and Estimated Tax Returns 1040ES.  Each taxpayer account
                has an entity module and one or more tax modules.  The entity module contains data
                which describes the taxpayer as an entity and which applies to all records
                of the taxpayer."

                So according to this paragraph, the following statement becomes fact:
                The 1040 form is for use by an entity.

                I have never received any correspondence from the IRS addressed to my proper name.
                It has always been all captial letters.  According to this provision in the IRM,
                they are addressing an entity.  Do you have proof otherwise???

                Carrol


                John Wilde wrote:
                No.  It's a crock.

                g'day
                John Wilde

                Greg Knapp wrote:
                Is their any truth to this concern that if a person is named in ALL CAPS, that person is now a corporation, and the real human being is some kind of trustee of the ALL CAPS ENTITY NAMED?



              • John Wilde
                Yes there is a social security trust. There is just no trust fund. What is being held in the trust is something in the neighborhood of 20 trillion in notes
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
                  Yes there is a social security trust. There is just no trust fund.
                  What is being held in the trust is something in the neighborhood of 20
                  trillion in notes executed in the name of the United States. These
                  notes are used to generate more FRNS and put them into circulation to
                  fund what are known as OBE's (Off Budget Enterprises). The trust was
                  created by Chapter 666 of the 1939 Statutes-at-Large (Vol 53 of the
                  Statutes-at-Large). In addition to holding the notes, what happens is
                  one hundred percent of the FICA withholding each month is automatically
                  appropriated and dumped into the trust and paid out to the current
                  beneficiaries.

                  Congress only created the Trust after the Social Security Act
                  survived the constitutional challenges. Had it created the trust and
                  earmarked the withholding when Social Security was first adopted, it
                  would have been declared unconstitutional just like the first Railroad
                  Retirement Act.

                  Prior to the creation of the Trust in 1939 Congress had to
                  appropriate the monies to be paid to the beneficiaries each and every
                  month. Once the Trust was created, the appropriation was done
                  automatically without any further act of Congress. Of course this means
                  that the withheld amounts are now being earmarked again, which renders
                  the FICA withholding unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it
                  since the change in the law in 1939.

                  g'day
                  John Wilde

                  Dave Miner wrote:

                  >Nick --
                  >
                  >Excellent and detailed reply. Only problem is you never addressed the ALL
                  >CAPs issue, and you are wrong about the trust. There is no SS trust, and
                  >never has been.
                  >
                  >
                • Nick
                  ... the ALL ... Sure I did Dave, it was at the bottom of the post if you read it. Your Part of the trust is the part in ALL CAPS not you the human. You are a
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Miner" <dminer@f...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Nick --
                    >
                    > Excellent and detailed reply. Only problem is you never addressed
                    the ALL
                    > CAPs issue,

                    Sure I did Dave, it was at the bottom of the post if you read it.
                    Your "Part of" the trust is the part in ALL CAPS not you the human.
                    You are a seperate entity from the trust yet you are held under 7203
                    to file and pay as a fiduciary of the trust under sections 671-677 of
                    the code.

                    >and you are wrong about the trust. There is no SS trust, and
                    > never has been. Lots of politicians use the words because they are
                    trying
                    > to reassure We The People. But the original Act specifically
                    stated that SS
                    > was a plain and simple tax with a plain and simple welfare benefit,
                    and that
                    > the SS revenues went straight into the General Fund of the
                    Congress.

                    Dave, do not mix money of account not in a trust with no trust
                    whatsoever. Consider this...

                    Title 42
                    § 401. Trust Funds

                    (a) Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund There is
                    hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a
                    trust fund to be known as the "Federal Old-Age and Survivors
                    Insurance Trust Fund".

                    And here is a 2002 report of the trust fund by the trustees. Here you
                    will find who the trustees of the SS trust are...

                    www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR00/tr00.pdf


                    > But you are absolutely correct about the presumptions. And everyone
                    > entitled to receive SS benefits is presumed to be a federal employee
                    > entitled to be taxed by the so-called income tax. Unless that
                    presumption
                    > is rebutted.
                    >
                    > The problem about rebutting is the IRS Reconstruction Act of 1998.
                    Before
                    > that Act, rebutting was a fairly simple matter of documenting a
                    bunch of
                    > court cases and legal references.

                    Dave, it is not a matter of what or who the Government says you are,
                    it is the documentation that people send in about you. What is sent
                    in about you are W-2s and 1099s. These are the specific items that
                    say you work for a FEDERAL WAGE. These presumptions have to be
                    rebutted and this is where to cut everything off at the knees.

                    This is why I am giving credit where credit is due. You need to read
                    cracking the code by Pete Hendrikson at www.losthorizons.com. Since
                    you get information about you from other people that is false
                    information about you, you need to be able to refute these
                    presumptions on forms supplied by the IRS for this purpose.
                  • John Wilde
                    I don t have to explain myself. I have done it time and time and time and time and time and time, etc. again. Go into the archives of this list and the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
                      I don't have to explain myself.  I have done it time and time and time and time and time and time, etc. again.  Go into the archives of this list and the Liberty Tree List, and the legality of the income tax list and the legality of the driver's license list.  I am done explaining why this is a crock.

                          However, if you want to go on arguing this useless piece of crap.  Go right ahead, I am not going to stop you.  Then when the gummint comes to you and starts stealing your stuff don't come crying to me.

                          If you wish to learn practical means to deal with the IRS then come talk.  Until then.  I have nothing more to say on the matter.  I am going to start treating this list the same way I have begun treating all of the other lists.  You don't exist.

                          FWIW, I see nothing in your citation of the manual that mentions anything about your name being in ALL CAPS as being the means for describing you as an entity.  It just says your information will be in an entity module.  It doesn't mean you ARE AN ARTICFICIAL ENTITY.  Guess what? As a man or a woman, you are also an entity - a living entity.  What are you guys going to start doing when these agencies and courts start using upper and lower case as the district courts are beginning to do?  Arizona's US District Court have required all pleadings be in upper an lower case for almost 5 years.  All you have to do is object and the court will issue a simple order to comply with local rule 1.9.  Has nothing to do with whether you are treated as an ARTIFICIAL entity or not.

                          What a crock.  Game over.

                      g'day
                      John Wilde

                      Carrol wrote:
                      Wow - that's just like saying "Because I said so".

                      If it is all a crock, why is there this provision in the
                      IRM regarding the 1040 form:

                      "IRM 9.4.4.2.1.3 (01-30-2001)
                      The Individual Master File
                      2..  The returns filed include Income Tax Forms 1040, 1040A, 1040NR, 1040C,
                      1040SS, 1040PR, and Estimated Tax Returns 1040ES.  Each taxpayer account
                      has an entity module and one or more tax modules.  The entity module contains data
                      which describes the taxpayer as an entity and which applies to all records
                      of the taxpayer."

                    • Dave Miner
                      Nick -- You said: Dave, it is not a matter of what or who the Government says you are, it is the documentation that people send in about you. What is sent in
                      Message 10 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005

                        Nick --

                        You said:
                        "Dave, it is not a matter of what or who the Government says you are, it is the documentation that people send in about you. What is sent in about you are W-2s and 1099s. These are the specific items that say you work for a FEDERAL WAGE. These presumptions have to be rebutted and this is where to cut everything off at the knees."

                        It is very much an issue of what the govt says I am.  Whatever these forms state and whatever these people claim (knowingly or unknowingly) is nothing more than hearsay unless and until I confirm them as fact by filing a Form 1040 and declaring them to be fact. 

                        Various persons (corporate and otherwise) send the IRS W-2s or 1099s concerning me every year.  But the IRS never even bothers me about them, much less attempts to collect taxes from me.  What others say about me or my money has no basis in fact if my Individual Master File has me listed as a non-taxpayer not required to file returns.

                        Yours in financial freedom,

                        Dave Miner
                        www.IRx-Solutions.com


                         

                      • Dave Miner
                        Carroll -- Every return has an Entity Section. It matches the Entity Section in the Individual Master File. The Entity Section of the IMF establishes who and
                        Message 11 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
                          Carroll --
                           
                          Every return has an Entity Section.  It matches the Entity Section in the Individual Master File.  The Entity Section of the IMF establishes who and what the "taxpayer" is.  There is also a Module Section and a Transaction Section in the IMF.  Does this mean that the "taxpayer" is a module?  Or a transaction?
                           
                          You said: "So according to this paragraph, the following statement becomes fact:
                          The 1040 form is for use by an entity.
                          "
                           
                          This is indeed a true statement.  But it does not necessarily follow that your understanding of the word "entity" is accurate.
                           
                          Yours in financial freedom,
                           
                          Dave Miner
                           
                           


                          From: Carrol [mailto:seafish@...]
                          Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 1:50 PM
                          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: Fw: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions

                          Wow - that's just like saying "Because I said so".

                          If it is all a crock, why is there this provision in the
                          IRM regarding the 1040 form:

                          "IRM 9.4.4.2.1.3 (01-30-2001)
                          The Individual Master File
                          2..  The returns filed include Income Tax Forms 1040, 1040A, 1040NR, 1040C,
                          1040SS, 1040PR, and Estimated Tax Returns 1040ES.  Each taxpayer account
                          has an entity module and one or more tax modules.  The entity module contains data
                          which describes the taxpayer as an entity and which applies to all records
                          of the taxpayer."

                          So according to this paragraph, the following statement becomes fact:
                          The 1040 form is for use by an entity.

                          I have never received any correspondence from the IRS addressed to my proper name.
                          It has always been all captial letters.  According to this provision in the IRM,
                          they are addressing an entity.  Do you have proof otherwise???

                          Carrol


                          John Wilde wrote:
                          No.  It's a crock.

                          g'day
                          John Wilde

                          Greg Knapp wrote:
                          Is their any truth to this concern that if a person is named in ALL CAPS, that person is now a corporation, and the real human being is some kind of trustee of the ALL CAPS ENTITY NAMED?



                        • Carrol
                          an Entity is a legal fiction. It is not a man, nor is it a woman. It exists in fiction only - An it . If that is not true, please enlighten me. Carrol
                          Message 12 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
                            an Entity is a legal fiction.
                            It is not a man, nor is it a woman.  It exists
                            in fiction only - An "it".

                            If that is not true, please enlighten me.
                            Carrol


                            Dave Miner wrote:
                             
                            You said: "So according to this paragraph, the following statement becomes fact:
                            The 1040 form is for use by an entity.
                            "
                             
                            This is indeed a true statement.  But it does not necessarily follow that your understanding of the word "entity" is accurate.
                             

                          • Frog Farmer
                            ... This is from wordiq.com: An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. In particular,
                            Message 13 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
                              On Apr 3, 2005, at 4:40 PM, Carrol wrote:

                              > an Entity is a legal fiction.
                              > It is not a man, nor is it a woman.  It exists
                              > in fiction only - An "it".
                              >
                              > If that is not true, please enlighten me.
                              > Carrol
                              >

                              This is from wordiq.com:

                              An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though
                              it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and
                              legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is
                              also no presumption that an entity is animate.

                              An entity could be viewed as a set containing subsets. This set itself
                              is among other sets. In philosophy, these sets are said to be abstract
                              objects as they do not refer to anything animate. The distinctive
                              propriety of an entity rationally yields the existence of the
                              relativily distinct entities.

                              The word 'entity' is often useful when one wants to refer to something
                              that could be a human being, a non-human animal, a non-thinking
                              life-form such as a plant or fungus, or a lifeless object; for
                              instance, one could say that any entity that enters a black hole would
                              be transported, in many pieces, to another dimension.

                              Sometimes, the word 'entity' is used in a general sense of a being,
                              whether or not the referent has material existence; e.g. God is often
                              referred to as an 'Entity' with no corporeal form.

                              In law, an entity is something capable of bearing legal rights and
                              obligations. It generally means "legal entity" or "artificial person"
                              but also includes "natural person".
                            • Dave Miner
                              Carrol -- Don t know if it is true or not. Never heard of any definition in law. But I do know that entity is used by a lot of legal and govt types to mean
                              Message 14 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
                                Carrol --
                                 
                                Don't know if it is true or not.  Never heard of any definition in law.  But I do know that entity is used by a lot of legal and govt types to mean anything that can function and do actions. 
                                 
                                My Webster's defines it as:
                                 
                                1. a: being, existence; esp. independent, separate, or self-contained existence; b. the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes;
                                2. something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality
                                 
                                I know the IRS uses entity to designate an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust, or anything else that can file forms or pay taxes.  Within those categories, or entities, is the separation between taxpayer and non-taxpayer.  The IRS has me listed in the Entity Section of the IMF as an individual not required to file returns.  Or at least it did, when it had an IMF on me.
                                 
                                Yours in financial freedom,
                                 
                                Dave Miner
                                 
                                 


                                From: Carrol [mailto:seafish@...]
                                Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 7:41 PM
                                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: Fw: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions

                                an Entity is a legal fiction.
                                It is not a man, nor is it a woman.  It exists
                                in fiction only - An "it".

                                If that is not true, please enlighten me.
                                Carrol
                              • Michael Pf
                                This should fly some fur: entity: something that has a real existence - do YOU have a real existence? something that exists as a distinct, independent, or
                                Message 15 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                                  This should fly some fur:
                                   
                                  entity: something that has a real existence - do YOU have a real existence?
                                            something that exists as a distinct, independent, or self-contained unit - are YOU distinct, independent and/or self-contained?
                                   
                                  Maybe YOU are an entity.  But are an entity that needs to file a 1040?   Ahhhhhhh - THAT is the real question, and the source of our troubles with the IRS.  They have convinced their computers that you ARE.  And, under the terms of the IRS Restructuring Act, the onus is now upon YOU to prove that you are NOT.

                                  Carrol <seafish@...> wrote:
                                  an Entity is a legal fiction.
                                  It is not a man, nor is it a woman.  It exists
                                  in fiction only - An "it".

                                  If that is not true, please enlighten me.
                                  Carrol


                                  Dave Miner wrote:
                                   
                                  You said: "So according to this paragraph, the following statement becomes fact:
                                  The 1040 form is for use by an entity.
                                  "
                                   
                                  This is indeed a true statement.  But it does not necessarily follow that your understanding of the word "entity" is accurate.
                                   



                                  Michael
                                  Laguna Niguel, CA
                                • John Wilde
                                  He (or she) who claims the affirmative has the burden of proof. g day John Wilde
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                                    He (or she) who claims the affirmative has the burden
                                    of proof.

                                    g'day
                                    John Wilde

                                    Carrol wrote:

                                    > an Entity is a legal fiction.
                                    > It is not a man, nor is it a woman. It exists
                                    > in fiction only - An "it".
                                    >
                                    > If that is not true, please enlighten me.
                                    > Carrol
                                    >
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.