When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Idiot Harry Reid maintains that paying income tax is voluntary in the US. Harry Reid is the Majority Leader in the US Senate. He's obviously not very bright. But then again… he is a politician. Interviewer Jan Helfeld does a great job of trying to nail him down but… well, you'll see. See more bottom Line Interviews by Jan Helfeld at janhelfeld.com … Harry Reid taxation voluntary Majority Leader US Senate Senator …
Related Articles From This Category
Simple Tips Keep your taxes currently applicable
tax savings is the dream we all want to achieve. Almost every country in the world is the income tax. Tax professionals should be ... Read More
How to pay any taxes, 2008
Additional / b> make 2008 the year you do not pay taxes! . . Completely updated to include all recent changes in ... Read More
Employment Tax Preparation
income tax is probably difficult to understand. It is the most quoted people in the income tax. The process of income tax has much ... Read More
Make the life of your tax deductible: simple techniques to reduce your taxes and start building wealth immediately
Additional / b> More than 150 small business owners can apply the deductions to reduce taxes and increase profits immediately If ... Read More
Small Business Taxes: 5 Tax Myths That are Costing You a Bundle
This article is based on the assumptions that 1) You are ... Read More
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
"Positive laws (laws of the US) are binding on all"
In his opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Title 26…has not been enacted into positive law, and is not the law, but is only prima facie evidence of the law. … Congress failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law.
Bilger v. United States
This evasion begs the issue. Laws are not all applicable to every party. Positive laws (laws of the US) are binding on all, private law is binding on those who have consented. Title 26 is code only, it is NOT part of the positive laws of the US. The burden of proof is on the IRS and other franchises to show the statute conferring Article III authority to dispute the declaration of someone as a nontaxpayer (thus NOT subject to the tax laws, as per USC, Economy Plumbing & Heating decision, et al.
And he is the mastermind of the health care bill in the Senate, we are all doomed…
Explain why you are not a taxpayer.
Explain nontaxpayer
For a clear explanation of where in the law subjects the Plaintiffs to tax, the court directs the Plaintiffs attention to Amendment XVI of the Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. ยง 1, which is entitled Tax Imposed.
Celauro v. United States
The laws of the U.S. are binding, no matter what you think about a contract. If you care to show some proof, I'll debate that with you.
"private law contract"
LOL!! Try that argument in court and see how far you get.
Everything in Title 26 is positive law. Your status is determined before YOU admit anything.
What a moron!
A "nontaxpayer" is a person not engaged in the "trade or business" franchise. Title 26's take on nontaxpayer is moot, as nontaxpayers are not subject to title 26. Accepting it would make them subject to the private law contract that is the tax code, converting them into taxpayers. Admitting you are a nontaxpayer is sufficient to establish that status, as per 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), the Declaratory Judgments Act, which IS positive law) Only an Article III court has jurisdiction to determine otherwise.
The Ryan decision evades the issue of whether "the law" that is not positive law, ie, not binding on those who did not enter into a contract, is APPLICABLE to be enforced on parties not consenting to the contract. Just saying Title 26 is law and is valid or enforceable is irrelevant, the issue is whether it applies to you or not. If Russia sends you a letter demanding taxes, but you've never been there, do you owe it? By objecting you aren't rejecting its tax laws, just its applicability to you.
Not sure why you ignore my request to explain nontaxpayer, it is in title 26.
What don't you know?
You don't know
Why? I already did.
Now.Explain nontaxpayer.
When?
Knock Knock it IS O.K. to come out of your box.
What?
where ?
Already did, two days ago.
Yes my post are conTROLLed
Explain nontaxpayer..
"You can not control…nor can I"
What?
Is someone behind you pulling your strings?
…It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloans views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT. It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloans view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
United States v. Sloan
You can not control the conversation to be ONLY title 26 nor can I.Crawl out of you box.Nontaxpayer is in title 26 explain it.