Time: Mon Apr 14 22:53:33 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA19198
for [address in tool bar]; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:02:56 -0700 (MST)
Delivered-To: liberty-and-justice-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:42:43 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: L&J: Tax Liability
References: <3.0.1.32.19970414141309.0093c380@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Very good point: notice that they
are buried near the end of the Code,
and not at the beginning, where you
would logically expect them to be.
The opening qualification is a gem:
"... where not otherwise distinctly expressed
or manifestly incompatible with the intent
thereof -- ...."
This qualifier applies to ALL definitions
in IRC Section 7701(a) et seq.,
BUT ...
try to find any mention of "intent" [sic].
I'll tell you what the "intent" is:
D-E-C-E-P-T-I-O-N
Another infamous one is the qualification
at IRC 7701(c):
"The terms 'includes' and 'including' when used
in a definition contained in this title shall
not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
within the meaning of the term defined."
Clear as mud, yes?
Notice that the term "include" is not mentioned;
notice also that "not ... exclude" is a double negative.
And, the finale, how does something join the class
of things which are "otherwise within the meaning of the term
defined" [sic] if they are not mentioned in the definitions
provided?
Put THAT in your pipe, and smoke it (when DEA isn't
looking over your shoulder).
If you think Treasury went nuts when they wrote this,
you would probably be right. They are still working
furiously to compute the number of angels which can
waltz on the head of a syringe. The answer is called
a Code of Federal Regulation.
"Federal Regulation" -- get it? :(
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 05:16 PM 4/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Before you can begin to understand the
>code and liability you must start with
>the definitions.
>
>Try getting a copy of 26 USC Sec. 7701
>and do a little studying.
>
>Jim Bullock
>
>
>R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote:
>>
>> >**You can't just not show up; that's how judgments arise. You would
>> >have to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. So, if a
>> >judgement is lodged against you, you are too late in the proceedings
>> >to be arguing that you didn't owe the money. You should have argued
>> >that before they filed the judgment.**
>>
>> OK, os you file in tax court and lose. Is there any recourse in civil court
>> to block them.
>>
>> (hey have you coming and going, don't they?)
>>
>> >**Well I don't know anything about Mike Goldman and his car. Did he
>> >pay for it with federal reserve notes or get it financed through a
>> >bank? Does he have a driver's license? In terms of understanding the
>> >law, the risk or "playing with fire" comes in where you try to make
>> >some stupid "patriot" argument, or any legal argument at all for that
>> >matter, and you haven't studied the law. It's not that difficult to
>> >understand some basic principles and know how to do the research, and
>> >it is a moderate investment in time and money that pays off in
>> >knowledge that is priceless in comparison to the the effort, in my
>> >opinion.**
>>
>> OK. Maybe we need a new breed of counselor - not a court advocate but an
>> advisor. Then peope like me won't have to stop what they enjoy doing and
>> learn something they don't enjoy. But such a lawyer would still have to be
>> fully credentialed, and have a bunch of liability ins too.
>>
>> Maybe I am hoping for too much, which is what the Fascists are counting on.
>>
>> >**Hee hee, that's just what Big Brother wants.**
>>
>> Yeah, as I suspected (see above).
>>
>> >**Well, you can't just not file whenever you feel like it. Either
>> >you're liable or you're not.**
>>
>> There is a break-even point where you earn just enough to pay out ~4000 in
>> taxes one year and then only earn ~10K the next and get the 4000 back
>> (EIC). If you can live with that, then you have beat the system - legally.
>>
>> Hee hee!
>>
>> >**Well, if you owe past-due taxes, then that makes you liable, and it
>> >also probably makes you a tax evader, doesn't it? Tax evasion is
>> >against the law; but tax avoidance is perfectly lawful. BTW, there's
>> >nothing in Social Security but IOU's anyway; the government spends the
>> >money. Also, Social Security is also a voluntary tax. Besides, ask
>> >how well those people are doing who rely solely on their SS benefits.**
>>
>> The last point is moot - all I want is my money back with interest.
>>
>> But you are right - fat chance of getting even that much back.
>>
>> Bob Knauer
>>
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>> "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>> Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail