Re: An old tax forum, here you will find a lot of what you are looking for.


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by continued on September 08, 1998 at 07:44:03:

In Reply to: Re: An old tax forum, here you will find a lot of what you are looking for. posted by continued on September 08, 1998 at 07:41:06:


From: hyjack
Date: 08-Aug-97

Dear Freind, Got a zeroxed copy of the 6209 today. Can't wait to get
started researching my IMF with it. Have you got any tips on how to use
this manual? Thanks

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hyjack
Date: 07-Aug-97

John, Good question. the only person I know personally that has had some
success is a good friend of mine. He filed a suit in Fed District Court
against an agent and the US government per se. It has been accepted and is
still pending. As a matter of fact the gov has assigned an attourney for
the agent. When his suit was accepted the IRS released the lien against
him. However they still send him his yearly deficceincy notices. Goes to
show you that in the IRS the right hand has no idea what the left hand is
doing. This fellow is an inspiration because he reads on a 5th grade level.
Yet he put together his lawsuit himself and it is still flying. His
employers were so harrassed by IRS agents for hireing him that they had to
let him go. I do know of a lot of people who claim to have been let go by
the IRS and I know some very smart people that have lost everything and
some whom have gone to jail. Not only is the IRS corrupt but so is the
justice system. Which judge wants to cut off the lifeblood of the
government (taxes).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John in California

Date: 07-Aug-97

Has anyone been able to stop their employer from withholding taxes from
their pay checks? or is it a battle in furtility? also has any one been
able to get the irs off the back without going to court? I would appreciate
any info on this

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Date: 06-Aug-97

Dan Go here http://www.yelmtel.com/~trusts/index.html These nice people can
answer some of your questions

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dan
Date: 05-Aug-97

does anybody know if investment profits are taxable for a Citizen of uSA? -
Is there anyway to get an account w/o a ss #? Is it a federal privelidge to
be able to invest in the markets like NYSE, NASDAC.?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: HYJACK
Date: 05-Aug-97

Vultures is a good primer. Forget about their stategies and affidavits
though. Save a patriot is doing some nice work and have a site. This site
has the best info out there if someone would read through it. Lots of good
info. The "friend" has posted some great stuff. How about it "friend" , any
more info on where to secure the elusive 6209 manual. I should have a
bootleg copy coming next week but I would like the gov. printed one for
sure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Date: 05-Aug-97

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TileMan
Date: 05-Aug-97

If anyone could help me out, I would greatly appreciate it!

I am a private contractor using the house I rent as my office. The $ I earn
is 100% based on my labor.Becaues of some finacial difficulties and
problems with the IRS in the past,I didnt file 1040's starting in1989 thru
1995.Out of ignorance and fear I filed for those years,sometime last
year.The consequence being an installment agreement to pay back tax plus
penalties.I have yet to file 1040 for 1996 however I did file for an
extenion.

I had worked for a Patroit a few years back and I didn't quite follow his
logic on taxes.I thought I would be asking for trouble from the IRS if I
pursued the course he was taking.

But now after finding out more information about taxes, via the internet, I
wish I had asked a few more questions.

Alot of what I've read(about taxes) recently is new to me,but thanks to the
internet i'm ready to ask more questions about how I can keep what is
rightfully mine.So...if anyone can advise me again I say it would be
greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

The TileMan

Ps...Would "Vultures in Eagles Clothing" be a good place to start?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hyjack
Date: 01-Aug-97

Dear Friend, I called the IRS office in oakland and spoke to a Mr.
Henderson and was told the 6209 manual was not for sale. He said, "It was
for employees only." I mentioned that it pertained to the information on my
IMF and I had a right to be able to procure it through the FOIA and would
be talking to my congressman about it. No luck with that line. I have a
lead on a fellow that sells copies for $30 and pursueing that. However I
would like a authentic published manual. Any further help is appreciated.
Thanks HYJACK.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Friend
Date: 31-Jul-97

I just received word that a redacted copy of 6209 is available by sending
$64.95 to the address below

Internal Revenue Service
1301 Clay Street
Stop 800-S
Oakland, California 94612

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hyjack
Date: 30-Jul-97

I am still waiting to hear from the office of disclosure ( Ben Franklin
Station)on my request for a 6209 manual They recieved my request 6 1/2
weeks ago. Without the manual I cannot document their fraud in taxing me
for being in a licensed activity (FS&P). Got any ideas Friend? I could
write my last letter and threaten a suit to get that damn lien off me. But
I was holding on because of the damning evidence that the 6209 and my
personal IRS records would show. If there is such an animal out their
(6209) and it should be made accessible through FOIA, I could possibly get
some help from my US senator in retrieving it. Thanks,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Friend
Date: 30-Jul-97

1939 Internal Revenue Code:
SUBCHAPTER B - DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY
3611 RETURNS EXECUTED BY TAXPAYER
When not otherwise provided for-
(a) Preparation.-
(1) By Taxpayer.- It shall be the duty of any person made liable to any
special tax or other tax imposed by law, to make a list or return, verified
by oath, to the collector or a deputy collector of the district where
located, of the articles or objects, including the quantity of goods,
wares, and merchandise, made or sold and charged with a tax, the several
rates and aggregate amount, according to the forms and regulations to be
prescribed by the commissioner, with the approval of the secretary, for
which such person is liable.

1939 Internal Revenue Code 3611 cross refernces to 1954 Internal Revenue
Code 6011

26 USC 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list
(a) General rule
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made
liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection
thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a
return or statement shall include therein the information required by such
forms or regulations.

Securities Act of 1933

Section 24. Penalties

Any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of this title, or
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under authority
thereof, or any person who willfully, in a registration statement filed
under this title, makes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to
state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make
the statements therein not misleading, shall upon conviction be fined not
more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Friend
Date: 30-Jul-97

Third Party Checklist for Determining Validity of IRS Notices of Levy.
Do not proceed beyond each step unless the answer to each question is YES.
If the answer to any question is NO, the levy is not legally valid and is
therefore NOT LEGALLY BINDING, and carries no force of law behind it.
Inform the IRS that you, as an employer, are unable to honor the levy until
all of the LEGAL REQUIREMENTS have been met and are satisfied.

1. Is there a copy of the Court ordered Warrant of Distraint and Notice of
Lien included with the Notice of Levy ?
2. Does the tax that the IRS claims is owed arise from taxable activities
subject to miscellaneous excise taxes under title 26 USC subtitle E or
those that would pertain to the enabling regulations of title 27 CFR Part
70 (alcohol, tobacco and firearms), or are you a federal employer as
defined in section 3401(d) (in one of the U.S. territories and responsible
for administering provisions under 26 USC subtitle C)?
_______________________________________________________ 3. Was a valid
Notice and Demand for unpaid tax sent to the individual whose property is
the target of the levy ?
________ 4. Has a valid Notice of Lien been filed with the appropriate
court at least 10 days after the Notice and Demand was received and has the
Court issued a warrant of distraint pursuant to IRC section 7403 ?
____________________________ 5. Has the IRS sent at least three notices to
the individual asking for payment and has the individual refused to pay ?
6. Has the IRS sent a Notice of Intent to Levy to the individual at least
30 days prior to the date on the Notice of Levy you received ?
___________________________________________________________________________________
7. Is the Notice of Levy signed by an IRS agent and is there a delegation
order in existence giving that particular agent the authority to issue
Notice of Levy ?

If all of the above conditions have been satisfied, the levy could be
valid. However, if you turn over property in response to an improper levy,
the individual who owns the property can sue you personally for punitive as
well as actual damages- IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A FIDUCIARY TO INSURE
THAT ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.

26 CFR 301.6332-1c
Any person who mistakenly surrenders to the United States property or
rights to property not properly subject to levy is not relieved from
liability to a third party who owns the property. The owners of mistakenly
surrendered property may, however, secure from the United States the
administrative relief provided for in section 6343(b) or may bring suit to
recover the property under section 7426.

Publication 515 - Employer's Instructions WITHHOLDING EXEMPTIONS and
REDUCTIONS
You should withhold any required tax if facts indicate that the individual,
or the fiduciary, to whom you are to pay the income is a nonresident alien.
However, the alien may be allowed an exemption from withholding or a
reduced rate of withholding as explained here.

26 C.F.R. 1.1441-5 Claiming to be a person not subject to withholding.
(a) Individuals. For purposes of chapter 3 of the code an individual's
written statement that he or she is a citizen of the United States may be
relied upon by the payer of the income as proof that such individual is a
citizen or resident of the United States. This statement shall be furnished
to the withholding agent in duplicate. An alien may claim residence in the
United States by filing form 1078 with the withholding agent in duplicate
in lieu of the above statement.
(c) Disposition of Statement and Form The duplicate copy of each statement
and form filed pursuant to this section shall be forwarded with a letter of
transmittal to the Internal Revenue Service Center, Philadelphia, PA.
19255. The original statment shall be retained by the withholding agent.
6654. Failure by individual to pay estimated income tax
(e) Exceptions
(1) Where tax is small amount
No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable
year if the tax shown on the return for such taxable year (or, if no return
is filed, the tax), reduced by the credit allowable under section 31, is
less than $500.
(2) Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year
No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable
year if -
(C) the individual was a citizen or resident of the United States
throughout the preceding taxable year.

28 USC 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation,
order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or
permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn
declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in
writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath
of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official
other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect,
be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration,
certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is
subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in
substantially the following form:

(1) If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify,
or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)''.

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or
commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)''.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John In California

Date: 29-Jul-97

Nice to here form you again freind and you to hyjack. as of this date my
master tas file states all 0000 for taxes interest and penaties for 95 and
96. still no refund for the gestapo though. Im demanding payment from th
sec of the treasury then on to court also in my imf one of the codes (look
at earlier posting) my letters were accepted as a legal excuse for failure
not to file.lets keep after the theives and get back what is ours. LET
FREEDOM RING

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Friend
Date: 28-Jul-97

Boy this site has been down for a long time
to whom it may concern-"IRS sucks"? since when did a trust fund "suck"
"Internal Revenue Service" is the name of trust fund # 62, the Secretary of
the Treasury is the trustee, the individuals who are benifiting from said
trust are unknown.
There is a lot of great stuff at this site, please go back and read it.
Go to this site http://home.erols.com/scambos/contents.htm it is one of the
best I have found. I obtained my copy of 6209 from somone who sued the IRS
for it, not an easy thing to obtain but it is out there

Found an original copy of the Social Security Act, (this not a joke) the
bill number is 666.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Date: 25-Jul-97

The IRS sucks!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hyjack
Date: 26-May-97

Friend, I am having a hard time getting a reply back on my FOIA reqest for
a 6209 manual. Sent my request certified mail and placed FOIA reqest in
proper place on my envelope. Got receipt back but never a reply. Is there
another adress you might know of beside the BEN FRANKLIN one? Thanks

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hyjack
Date: 22-May-97

Part 2 "Agent sees light" supra; Williams v. People, 26 Colo. >272, 57P.
701: People v. Jewell, 138 Mich. 620, 101 NW 835; St. >Louis I. M. & S Ry.
Co. v. Batesville & W. Tel. Co., 80 Ark. 499, >97 SW 660; Clay v. State, 52
Tex. Cr. 555, 107 8W 1129; or >Stubbornly, obstinately, perversely.Wales v.
Miner, 89 lad. 1l8, at >127; Lynch v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 762; 109 SE.
427; Claus v. >Chicago Gt. W. Ry. Co., 136 Iowa 7, 111 N.W. 15; State v.
Harwell, >129 N.C. 550; 40 S.E. 48. The word is also employed to
characterize >a thing done without grounds for believing it is lawful. Roby
v. >Newton, 121 Ga. 679, 49 S.E. 694, or conduct marked by a careless
>disregard whether or not one has the right so to act.United States >v.
Philadelphia & R. Ry Co., 223 Fed. 207, at 210; State v. Savra. >129 Iowa
122; 105 N.W. 387; State v. Morgan, 136 N.C. 628,48 S.F. >670. > >Thus,
since the government's Privacy Act Notice and Paperwork >Reduction Act
Notice do not meet its intended purpose and does not >specifically say that
filing an income tax return is required, the >courts have recognized that
the word "willfully" in these statutes >generally connotes a voluntary.
>intentional violation of a known legal duty. U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US. >346.
>The Supreme Court has ruled as recently as January 8, 1991, that a >belief
that one is not required to file an income tax return, based >upon
professional advice, precludes the "willfulness" requirement >[Cheek v.
U.S., 498 US. 192, at 207 (1991)]. > > >To sum up, the government must
prove that you have a liability and >they must disprove your claim that you
believed filing an income >tax return was not required or is voluntary, and
instead prove that >you intentionally did not file one. This is a decision
that you have >to make on your own. If you have a tax liability you will
have to >file a return. > >With all the facts and evidence presented
herein. you should have no >problem defending yourself should the
government try to criminally >prosecute you for not filing an income tax
return if you have no >liability. > >I sincerely hope that all points have
been clarified. If any >additional questions arise > >please do not
hesitate to write me again. > > >Sincerely, > > > >John J. Schlabach,
Enrolled Agent > >Enrollment # 50614 > > > >Good Bye for now

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: HYJACK
Date: 22-May-97

Here is a copy of a letter from an IRS agent I picked up today from a news
group. It is titled " Another agent sees the light".
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved: militia-request@atype.com
(9cb1271b73d31e9660f3c4e38ec5050a) From: Dave Kuehne Organization: The
Malicious Militia Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-Path:
dkuehne@erols.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia Date:
Thu, 22 May 97 6:18:11 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) Message-ID:
<864281891$20546@atype.com> Subject: I.R.S. Agent sees the light?!?!?
Lines: 642 Path:
isp1.blissnet.com!cpk-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bone.think.com!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!atype.com!militia-request

>Another "Enrolled Agent" sees the light?!?!?

>From: "John R. Hockman" >Subject: Letter > >Thought you might like this. >
>John > >John J Schiabach, Enrolled Agent >TAXES -ACCOUNTING-AUDITS- ESTATE
PLANNING PAYROLL >17511 North Greenbluff Road >Colbert, Washington 99005
>Telephone (509) 238-4697 >=46ax (509) 238-4697 > >=20 > >Henry E. Newman
>c/o 324 Lincoln Avenue #B >El Cajon, California Republic > >April 16, 1997
> >Dear Mr. Newman: >At your request I have researched the Internal Revenue
Code (Title >26 U.S.C.) relative to an individual income tax return. I
cannot >tell you not to file an income tax return unless you have no tax
>liability. Each person involved, on his/her own, must make this
>determination. > >First let me tell you something about myself I am an
Enrolled >Agent. >Enrolled Agents are defined in the IRS Regulations
Circular 230 as a >person who has demonstrated technical competence in
interpreting >and administering the Internal Revenue Code and regulations
>thereunder. This person has passed a strenuous test in all areas of
>taxation administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Enrolled >Agents
are licensed by the Treasury Department and must continue to >show
proficiency in the tax laws and regulations with documented >continuing
professional education hours in order to maintain their >licenses. > >There
are two important issues that you need to address. What is the >subject of
the tax? Where is the liability for that tax? These >questions are
addressed more in detail later in this research >letter. Let us look at
some statutes that might concern you. Lets >start with the failure to file
return, supply information, or pay >tax, as stated in section 7203 as
follows. > >IRC SECTION 7203, Willful failure to file return, supply
>information, or pay tax > >Any person required under this title to pay any
estimated tax or >tax, or required by this title or by regulations made
under >authority thereof to make a return. keep any records, or supply any
>information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, >make
such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at >the time or
times required by law or regulations, shall, in >addition to other
penalties provided by law, be guilty of a >misdemeanor and, upon conviction
thereof, shall be fined notmore >Than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a
corporation), or imprisoned >not more than I year, or both, together with
the costs of >prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom
there is >a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply
to >such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to
>tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In The >case
of a willful violation of any provision of section 60501, the >first
sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting "5 >years" for "1
year" > > >Those who deal truthfully are the Lord's delight. Proverbs 12:22
> > >As you can see by the highlighted words there are two essential
>elements that must be present. First, you must be required to pay a >tax,
or be liable for paying a tax. This means it is a crime only >if you are a
person required by law or regulation to pay a tax, >file a return or keep
such records. It is, therefore, important to >determine if you are a person
"required" to perform these functions. >This will be the first subject
discussed in this letter. > > The government has to prove these elements in
order to subject you >to punishment. They must first prove you had `taxable
income", >that you are "liable" for a tax, and that the "liability" made
you >a "required person." If any of these elements cannot be proven, you
>cannot be subject to punishment. > > Let's first see whether or not you
are a "person liable." To start >with, I look at the two code sections that
address this issue >under: Title 3, Section 552a(e)(3) [[The Privacy Act],
and Title >44, Section 3504(c)(3)(C) [[The Paperwork Reduction Act]. > >The
Privacy Act states that the Agency requesting information to: > >(3) inform
each individual whom it asks to supply information, on >the form which it
uses to collect the information or on a separate >form that can be retained
by the individual--- > >(A) the authority (Ether granted by statute, or by
executive order >of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the
>information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory >or
voluntary; > >(B) the principal purpose or Putp05C5 for which the
information is >intended to be used; (C) the routine uses which may be made
of the >information, as published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this
>subsection; and > >(D) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or
any part of >the requested information... >The Paperwork Reduction Act
states that the Director of the Office >of Management and Budget must
include with his/her information >request: a statement to inform the person
reviewing the request >why the information is being collected, how it is to
be used, and >whether responses to the request are voluntary, required to
obtain >a benefit, or mandatory..." > >Now, here we have two statutes
directing the government to tell us >whether giving the IRS an income tax
return is voluntary or >mandatory. The IRS responds to the directives of
the Privacy Act >and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice with the following
statement:"Our >legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code
section >6001, 6011 and 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you
>must file a return or statement with us for party tax you are liable >for.
Your response is mandatory under these sections." > >I have to point out to
you that the IRS again uses the word "liable >for" > >Now, let's look at
the Internal Revenue Code to see what it has to >say. >The two sections
6001 and 6011 follow as written in the code of >1994. > >SECTION 6001.
Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, >and special returns >
>Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the
>collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, >make
such returns, and comply with such roles and regulations as >the Secretary
may from time to time prescribe. whenever in the >judgment of the Secretary
it is necessary, he may require any >person, by notice served upon such
person or by regulations, to >make such returns, render such statements, or
keep such records, as >the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or
not such person >is liable fur tax under this title. The only records which
an >employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection
>with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to >comply
with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by >employees
under section 6053(a). > >SECTION 6011. General requirement of return,
statement, or list > >(a) General rule--When required by regulations
prescribed by the >Secretary >any person made liable for any tax imposed by
this title, or with >respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return
or statement >according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the
Secretary. >Every person required to make a return or statement shall
include >therein the information required by such forms or regulations. >
>In these two sections we are instructed to file a return or >statement for
any tax we are liable for. indeed, Section 6001 >refers to "Every person
liable for My tax imposed by [The Internal >Revenue Code]..." and Section
6011 refers to "...any person made >liable for any tax imposed by [The
Internal Revenue Code]..." But, >as you can see, nowhere in either of these
two sections are we told >who is liable for, in this case, the income tax.
>The government has in effect, told us that a response is mandatory >if we
are liable for the tax, but neglected to tell us whether or >not we are
liable for the tax. The government has been very >explicit in telling us
that a response, either a return or >statement, is mandatory for My tax
that we are liable for; however, >the government has remained silent in
telling us who is liable for >the tax. Thus, even after reading the
government's official notices >under the Privacy Act and Paperwork
Reduction Act, we still do not >know if an income tax return is required of
us. In my opinion, by >maintaining silence on this central issue, the
government has not >complied with either the spirit or the letter of the
law of the two.Acts. >This opinion is shared by courts as well: >
>"`Silence' is species of conduct, and constitutes an implied
>representation of the existence of facts in question... When >silence is
of such character and under such circumstances that it >would become a
fraud...it will operate as an estoppel."Carmine v.Bowen 64 AT. 932 . >
>Since the government has not told you whether you are required to >file an
income tax return, you have asked me to research this >matter. Since you
must be a "person liable" to be a "person >required", lets address this
issue. > > > >The right to tax comes from the United States Constitution,
the >supreme law of the land, which authorizes the federal government to
>impose two broad categories of taxes: direct taxes under Article I,
>Section 2 and Article I, Section 9, and indirect taxes under >Article I,
Section 8. Direct taxes are required to be apportioned >among the states,
while indirect taxes must be uniform throughout >the United States. >
>Briefly, a direct tax is a tax on an ownership interest which the >owner
cannot pass on, while an indirect tax is on an event where >the transaction
and the impact of the tax can be passed on, in >whole or in part, to
others. >In order for a tax to fall into the indirect tax category the
>individual liable for the tax cannot be the ultimate, final >consumer.
This is so since the one paying the tax can then add it >on to the price of
the thing being taxed and recover it (pass it >on) when it is sold. The
ultimate, final consumer would have no way >to recover (pass on) the tax,
so any tax which the ultimate, finalconsumer is liable for would be a
direct tax based on an ownership >interest. > >"The Sixteenth Amendment
does not extend the power of taxation to >new or excepted subjects Pack v
Lowe, 247 U.S. 165. "The Sixteenth >Amendment conferred no new power of
taxation Stanton v Baltic >Mining Co., 240 US. 103, at 112. > >"The
individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the >mere privilege
of existing., The corporation is an artificial entity >which owes its
existence in charter powers to the State, but the >individual's right to
live and own property are natural Rights for >which an excise cannot be
imposed."Redfield v Fisher, 292 P.813, at >819. > >"Neith




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]