dj123 0 #451 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo do you want to find the definition of words like "taxpayer" and "income" within the tax code or would you rather continue to argue from a base of ignorance? You know you just proved my point, right?Quote Uhm.., no. What exactly is your point? Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings mnealtx, for you and yours. "Treetop" a.k.a.LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #452 December 31, 2010 QuoteListen, if you can't find the definition to the word"income" (in the law), Listen, if you can't find "rights" in the Bill of Rights(Yes, I know what they really are). Or, If you can't find the definition of "Freedom" in any legal document. . .Give me your keys!!! Quote Fair Winds and . . . . . . .My blessing sounds a bit gay? Good sign off, but, what the hell is this treetop?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #453 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteListen, if you can't find the definition to the word"income" (in the law), Listen, if you can't find "rights" in the Bill of Rights(Yes, I know what they really are). Or, If you can't find the definition of "Freedom" in any legal document. . .Give me your keys!!! Quote Fair Winds and . . . . . . .My blessing sounds a bit gay? Good sign off, but, what the hell is this treetop? Oh, now there's a story.., would you believe that I used to stand 6-10 inches tall but after a brutally hard landing 10 inches of bone had to be removed from my left leg. The doctors also took ten inches to compensate from my right leg. I'm not as tall as I once was. If you don't buy that I may have another story.LOL! Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop"a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #454 December 31, 2010 QuoteUhm.., no. What exactly is your point? The point that you've already been given the definition of income as contained within the encoded law and shown where individuals are liable for taxes. If you're actually going to try the incredibly dim-witted tactic of saying that you are not liable for taxes for any of the incredibly dim-witted reasons you've trotted out, I wish you better luck than Wesley Snipes - it's likely your cell won't be as 'cushy' as his.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #455 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteUhm.., no. What exactly is your point? The point that you've already been given the definition of income as contained within the encoded law and shown where individuals are liable for taxes.Quote No. Noone has provided the definition of "income " as defined within the tax code. Now I don't know as to what you believe the relationship between the government and the citizens should be , but I believe that the citizens have a right to petition the government for answers to their questions concerning the laws. I believe that the government is obligated to answer such a petition. Would it suprise you mnealtx to find that the government was petitioned to answer a number of questions concerning the tax code and refused to answer every point asked? Income was one of the terms they refused to define. So what is income? The government won't define it. I guess it's up to each individual to define for themselves. If the government or the IRS has a problem with my definition I guess they can argue their point in court. Until that date.., and they aren't exactly beeting down my doors at the moment, I'll continue to define "income "as proffits gained from sources other than ones own labour. Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY If you're actually going to try the incredibly dim-witted tactic of saying that you are not liable for taxes for any of the incredibly dim-witted reasons you've trotted out, I wish you better luck than Wesley Snipes - it's likely your cell won't be as 'cushy' as his. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #456 December 31, 2010 QuoteIf you don't buy that I may have another story.LOL! I want to hear the story of how you believe that your misunderstanding of tax codes can get you out of hot water with the IRS when you plan to implement them._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #457 December 31, 2010 Go read title 26 - the definition is in there and it's been given to you in the thread. Just because you don't LIKE the definition doesn't make it undefined.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #458 December 31, 2010 QuoteWould it suprise you mnealtx to find that the government was petitioned to answer a number of questions concerning the tax code and refused to answer every point asked? It was never refused. There was many court cases that addressed them. It's even been to the Supreme Court a couple of times._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #459 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteIf you don't buy that I may have another story.LOL! I want to hear the story of how you believe that your misunderstanding of tax codes can get you out of hot water with the IRS when you plan to implement them. Look , there are people I worry about, family and freinds. The IRS is not on my list of worries. I've filed every form the law requires me to file and I've paid every cent of tax the law requires that I pay. Now what about you? Have you read the entire tax code? That thing has more pages than the Bible!!! Do you understand every bit of it?? If you haven't or if you didn't understand every phrase did you perjure yourself when you signed on the line beneath the paragragh that states;"under penalty of perjury I attest that all of the information contained in this return is true to the best of my knowledge"? But the best of your knowledge is that you know you don't completely understand the tax code. Nobody does! Not even the top dog at the IRS. The best of your knowledge is that you don't know. You don't fully understand the tax code. But you signed that line any way and put yourself in jeapordy of a perjury charge,didn't you? Yeah you did. Do you know that failure to file is a misdemeanor. Perjury is a whole different ball of wax. We're talkin' Felonious crimes and big time. Sleep well, Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #460 December 31, 2010 QuoteGo read title 26 - the definition is in there and it's been given to you in the thread. Just because you don't LIKE the definition doesn't make it undefined. "Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction)." That's not a definition of "income",mnealtx. Where do you see income defined in that paragragh? Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #461 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteWould it suprise you mnealtx to find that the government was petitioned to answer a number of questions concerning the tax code and refused to answer every point asked? It was never refused. There was many court cases that addressed them. It's even been to the Supreme Court a couple of times. OK then , show us where the supreme court defined income as it relates to the tax code. Fair Winds and UnlimitedCeilings (doesn't that just soften things up a bit before I nail it all down with) "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #462 December 31, 2010 QuoteLook , there are people I worry about, family and freinds. That is noble and honest. But, as I have said before, you have to do the research on your own. You cannot rely on what other people say and take it as faith. It will get you, and worse, your family in trouble. QuoteNow what about you? Have you read the entire tax code? That thing has more pages than the Bible!!! Do you understand every bit of it?? I have been through practically the whole of Subtitle A, B, C, I, as they apply to me. Others, because as a Volunteer Income Tax Assistant for some years, due to required knowledge. I have not read the entire tax code, but I know how to navigate it and stand by for last minute laws to be passed or denied. The bible has more pages and not as navigatable. Pub 17 for personal income taxes is your best friend and will point you everywhere. Quote;"under penalty of perjury I attest that all of the information contained in this return is true to the best of my knowledge"? I understand this quote. This statement is what causes tax deniers to go to jail, like Wesley Snips, and what protects the not-so-experienced from getting prosecuted. They usually just get audited and surprisingly enough, they usually get more money back. QuoteThe best of your knowledge is that you don't know. You don't fully understand the tax code. That's why there are a series of 800 numbers to call if something doesn't seem kosher. If you follow to the letter of the laws, and there is still problems, there are protections guaranteed to you. You won't be prosecuted for ignorance here. The IRS is the least draconian organization I have worked with. They allow for mistakes as long as you will own up to them and it takes an active disregard for taxes before you ever see a judge._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 622 #463 December 31, 2010 Commissioner v. Kowalski United States v. Connor Cullinane v. Commissioner, Lonsdale v. Commissioner Take your pick. There are numerous more anti 16th failures fully documented. Or at least puff puff give. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #464 December 31, 2010 QuoteCommissioner v. Kowalski United States v. Connor Cullinane v. Commissioner, Lonsdale v. Commissioner Take your pick. There are numerous more anti 16th failures fully documented. Or at least puff puff give. What do you think about the recent case involving the previous IRS special agent Joe Bannister? Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #465 December 31, 2010 Bannister was acquitted. You can't go to jail for giving bad advice and the law was on his side here. But the case wasn't about him. The client he represented, Thompson, was found guilty of two counts of knowingly filing false claims against the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 287, ten counts of willful failure to collect and turn over taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202, and one count of willfully filing a false income tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206 You can't go to jail for giving bad advice, but you can get sued. He was fired from the IRS for providing erroneous advice to taxpayers, including improperly advising them that tax returns were not required because IRS Code sections 861 through 856 define "source of income" in a manner that excluded the income of United States citizens residing in the United States from United States tax. This has been addressed in this thread a couple of times._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #466 December 31, 2010 QuoteEver since Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner screwed up his tax returns we knew he was numerically challenged. But his statement to Congress on December 16, 2010, on the cost of the bailout shows a willful inability to count. Yes, Wall Street has paid back most of our bailout funds. Whoopee! Our economy is in shambles, and millions of people are suffering. With his offensive "no big deal" analysis, Geithner glosses over all this human misery, and sidesteps the hidden costs of the bailout, including the financial insurance we taxpayers provided to every giant financial company in the country via the Fed. On the open market, that insurance -- which guarantees trillions of dollars in toxic assets -- would come at a very steep price. We coughed it up for free. But that's still chump change compared to the human costs of the worst employment crisis since the Great Depression -- the lost income, the depleted savings, the ravaged neighborhoods. Then there's the capsized state and local budgets, the public service reductions, the laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers -- all resulting from a plunge in public revenues caused by Wall Street's crash. Why aren't these costs on Geithner's balance sheet? A cynic might think Tim was priming us to accept the latest round of Wall Street bonuses. Hey -- they paid us back, so why should we care how much they earn? http://www.alternet.org/economy/149361/wall_st%27s_10_biggest_lies_of_2010/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #467 December 31, 2010 Quote I'm beginning to re-think my views on taxation.... Having just returned from 8 days in the Caribbean I have to say that I saw some of the most beautiful ocean-going vessels. Yeah...good fortune tends to skew our reality...edit:I meant to post a laughing face...not a crazy face......but does it seriously matter?...sorry...the truth hurts.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #468 December 31, 2010 Quote...sorry...the truth hurts. you must live a painfree life...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #469 December 31, 2010 Quote Did you procure the required permits to demonstrate? I'm a renegade. They wouldn't allow naked Tax Ho's in my parade. ...and I did notice you picked up where Bill left off. Sucker. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #470 December 31, 2010 QuoteBut the best of your knowledge is that you know you don't completely understand the tax code. And I signed it knowing all that. No worries about perjury. There's no requirement to fully understand tax code. It's simple really...just hand them your wallet and look away for a split second....you're now good-to-go with the taxman.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #471 December 31, 2010 Quote You said money, not electrons or speed of electrons in orbit nor the curvature of that orbit. Translating monetary weights into gravity acceleration? Changing subject to suit you AGAIN. Feigning surprise here. Just how many billionaires (or anyone else for that matter) keep their money in $ bills. Do you really think Bill Gates keeps 400 tons of bills in his basement? You are just being obtuse and stupid. Financial transactions just involve transfer of electrons these days.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 622 #472 December 31, 2010 Electronic transactions are not measured by weight. I love how you bring a measurement into a conversation only to challenge the meaning of the term you used. Calling me stupid is pretty low perfessor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,411 #473 December 31, 2010 Enough with the PA's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #474 December 31, 2010 QuoteThe good news is there's no reason anyone should ever starve to death in America. The bad news is more and more working Americans, many earning what were once middle class incomes, are spending their time and scarce money to find their next meal. Val Traore, the radiant and gregarious CEO of the Food Bank of South Jersey (FBSJ), wanted to make one thing perfectly clear in our discussion of hunger in America today. "We do not have starvation here in the United States. In Mali," she says, referring to the West African country where about half the population lives below the internationalpoverty lineof $1.25 a day, "if you live in poverty you risk starvation and death. That doesn't happen here in America." It's an important point worth dwelling on. So what is happening here? "We're seeing a large number of families that have never needed food assistance before," reports Traore. How many? So far, for 2010 FBSJ has witnessed a 10% increase in their client base of approximately 100,000 people. Here's the surprise: a large portion of the people needing food assistance today are working, and especially among FBSJ's new clients, many are earning incomes nearly twice the poverty line of $22,055 per year for a family of four (up to 185% of poverty). Who are the hungry and why can't they afford to feed themselves and their families? Increasingly, the shocking answer is this: If you are not financially independent, the odds are good that someday you could be waiting in line to feed yourself and your family. http://www.alternet.org/food/149337/food_emergency%3A_millions_of_americans_are_heading_to_foodbanks_for_the_first_time_in_their_lives/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,411 #475 December 31, 2010 Dreamdancer, Dec 29th: >or keep building palaces while the people starve? From Dreamdancer, Dec 31st: >Val Traore, the radiant and gregarious CEO of the Food Bank of South >Jersey. . . "We do not have starvation here in the United States." Well, we've solved that problem pretty quickly! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next Page 19 of 21 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
nanook 1 #452 December 31, 2010 QuoteListen, if you can't find the definition to the word"income" (in the law), Listen, if you can't find "rights" in the Bill of Rights(Yes, I know what they really are). Or, If you can't find the definition of "Freedom" in any legal document. . .Give me your keys!!! Quote Fair Winds and . . . . . . .My blessing sounds a bit gay? Good sign off, but, what the hell is this treetop?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #453 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteListen, if you can't find the definition to the word"income" (in the law), Listen, if you can't find "rights" in the Bill of Rights(Yes, I know what they really are). Or, If you can't find the definition of "Freedom" in any legal document. . .Give me your keys!!! Quote Fair Winds and . . . . . . .My blessing sounds a bit gay? Good sign off, but, what the hell is this treetop? Oh, now there's a story.., would you believe that I used to stand 6-10 inches tall but after a brutally hard landing 10 inches of bone had to be removed from my left leg. The doctors also took ten inches to compensate from my right leg. I'm not as tall as I once was. If you don't buy that I may have another story.LOL! Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop"a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #454 December 31, 2010 QuoteUhm.., no. What exactly is your point? The point that you've already been given the definition of income as contained within the encoded law and shown where individuals are liable for taxes. If you're actually going to try the incredibly dim-witted tactic of saying that you are not liable for taxes for any of the incredibly dim-witted reasons you've trotted out, I wish you better luck than Wesley Snipes - it's likely your cell won't be as 'cushy' as his.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #455 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteUhm.., no. What exactly is your point? The point that you've already been given the definition of income as contained within the encoded law and shown where individuals are liable for taxes.Quote No. Noone has provided the definition of "income " as defined within the tax code. Now I don't know as to what you believe the relationship between the government and the citizens should be , but I believe that the citizens have a right to petition the government for answers to their questions concerning the laws. I believe that the government is obligated to answer such a petition. Would it suprise you mnealtx to find that the government was petitioned to answer a number of questions concerning the tax code and refused to answer every point asked? Income was one of the terms they refused to define. So what is income? The government won't define it. I guess it's up to each individual to define for themselves. If the government or the IRS has a problem with my definition I guess they can argue their point in court. Until that date.., and they aren't exactly beeting down my doors at the moment, I'll continue to define "income "as proffits gained from sources other than ones own labour. Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY If you're actually going to try the incredibly dim-witted tactic of saying that you are not liable for taxes for any of the incredibly dim-witted reasons you've trotted out, I wish you better luck than Wesley Snipes - it's likely your cell won't be as 'cushy' as his. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #456 December 31, 2010 QuoteIf you don't buy that I may have another story.LOL! I want to hear the story of how you believe that your misunderstanding of tax codes can get you out of hot water with the IRS when you plan to implement them._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #457 December 31, 2010 Go read title 26 - the definition is in there and it's been given to you in the thread. Just because you don't LIKE the definition doesn't make it undefined.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #458 December 31, 2010 QuoteWould it suprise you mnealtx to find that the government was petitioned to answer a number of questions concerning the tax code and refused to answer every point asked? It was never refused. There was many court cases that addressed them. It's even been to the Supreme Court a couple of times._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #459 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteIf you don't buy that I may have another story.LOL! I want to hear the story of how you believe that your misunderstanding of tax codes can get you out of hot water with the IRS when you plan to implement them. Look , there are people I worry about, family and freinds. The IRS is not on my list of worries. I've filed every form the law requires me to file and I've paid every cent of tax the law requires that I pay. Now what about you? Have you read the entire tax code? That thing has more pages than the Bible!!! Do you understand every bit of it?? If you haven't or if you didn't understand every phrase did you perjure yourself when you signed on the line beneath the paragragh that states;"under penalty of perjury I attest that all of the information contained in this return is true to the best of my knowledge"? But the best of your knowledge is that you know you don't completely understand the tax code. Nobody does! Not even the top dog at the IRS. The best of your knowledge is that you don't know. You don't fully understand the tax code. But you signed that line any way and put yourself in jeapordy of a perjury charge,didn't you? Yeah you did. Do you know that failure to file is a misdemeanor. Perjury is a whole different ball of wax. We're talkin' Felonious crimes and big time. Sleep well, Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #460 December 31, 2010 QuoteGo read title 26 - the definition is in there and it's been given to you in the thread. Just because you don't LIKE the definition doesn't make it undefined. "Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction)." That's not a definition of "income",mnealtx. Where do you see income defined in that paragragh? Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #461 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteWould it suprise you mnealtx to find that the government was petitioned to answer a number of questions concerning the tax code and refused to answer every point asked? It was never refused. There was many court cases that addressed them. It's even been to the Supreme Court a couple of times. OK then , show us where the supreme court defined income as it relates to the tax code. Fair Winds and UnlimitedCeilings (doesn't that just soften things up a bit before I nail it all down with) "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #462 December 31, 2010 QuoteLook , there are people I worry about, family and freinds. That is noble and honest. But, as I have said before, you have to do the research on your own. You cannot rely on what other people say and take it as faith. It will get you, and worse, your family in trouble. QuoteNow what about you? Have you read the entire tax code? That thing has more pages than the Bible!!! Do you understand every bit of it?? I have been through practically the whole of Subtitle A, B, C, I, as they apply to me. Others, because as a Volunteer Income Tax Assistant for some years, due to required knowledge. I have not read the entire tax code, but I know how to navigate it and stand by for last minute laws to be passed or denied. The bible has more pages and not as navigatable. Pub 17 for personal income taxes is your best friend and will point you everywhere. Quote;"under penalty of perjury I attest that all of the information contained in this return is true to the best of my knowledge"? I understand this quote. This statement is what causes tax deniers to go to jail, like Wesley Snips, and what protects the not-so-experienced from getting prosecuted. They usually just get audited and surprisingly enough, they usually get more money back. QuoteThe best of your knowledge is that you don't know. You don't fully understand the tax code. That's why there are a series of 800 numbers to call if something doesn't seem kosher. If you follow to the letter of the laws, and there is still problems, there are protections guaranteed to you. You won't be prosecuted for ignorance here. The IRS is the least draconian organization I have worked with. They allow for mistakes as long as you will own up to them and it takes an active disregard for taxes before you ever see a judge._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 622 #463 December 31, 2010 Commissioner v. Kowalski United States v. Connor Cullinane v. Commissioner, Lonsdale v. Commissioner Take your pick. There are numerous more anti 16th failures fully documented. Or at least puff puff give. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #464 December 31, 2010 QuoteCommissioner v. Kowalski United States v. Connor Cullinane v. Commissioner, Lonsdale v. Commissioner Take your pick. There are numerous more anti 16th failures fully documented. Or at least puff puff give. What do you think about the recent case involving the previous IRS special agent Joe Bannister? Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #465 December 31, 2010 Bannister was acquitted. You can't go to jail for giving bad advice and the law was on his side here. But the case wasn't about him. The client he represented, Thompson, was found guilty of two counts of knowingly filing false claims against the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 287, ten counts of willful failure to collect and turn over taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202, and one count of willfully filing a false income tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206 You can't go to jail for giving bad advice, but you can get sued. He was fired from the IRS for providing erroneous advice to taxpayers, including improperly advising them that tax returns were not required because IRS Code sections 861 through 856 define "source of income" in a manner that excluded the income of United States citizens residing in the United States from United States tax. This has been addressed in this thread a couple of times._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #466 December 31, 2010 QuoteEver since Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner screwed up his tax returns we knew he was numerically challenged. But his statement to Congress on December 16, 2010, on the cost of the bailout shows a willful inability to count. Yes, Wall Street has paid back most of our bailout funds. Whoopee! Our economy is in shambles, and millions of people are suffering. With his offensive "no big deal" analysis, Geithner glosses over all this human misery, and sidesteps the hidden costs of the bailout, including the financial insurance we taxpayers provided to every giant financial company in the country via the Fed. On the open market, that insurance -- which guarantees trillions of dollars in toxic assets -- would come at a very steep price. We coughed it up for free. But that's still chump change compared to the human costs of the worst employment crisis since the Great Depression -- the lost income, the depleted savings, the ravaged neighborhoods. Then there's the capsized state and local budgets, the public service reductions, the laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers -- all resulting from a plunge in public revenues caused by Wall Street's crash. Why aren't these costs on Geithner's balance sheet? A cynic might think Tim was priming us to accept the latest round of Wall Street bonuses. Hey -- they paid us back, so why should we care how much they earn? http://www.alternet.org/economy/149361/wall_st%27s_10_biggest_lies_of_2010/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #467 December 31, 2010 Quote I'm beginning to re-think my views on taxation.... Having just returned from 8 days in the Caribbean I have to say that I saw some of the most beautiful ocean-going vessels. Yeah...good fortune tends to skew our reality...edit:I meant to post a laughing face...not a crazy face......but does it seriously matter?...sorry...the truth hurts.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #468 December 31, 2010 Quote...sorry...the truth hurts. you must live a painfree life...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #469 December 31, 2010 Quote Did you procure the required permits to demonstrate? I'm a renegade. They wouldn't allow naked Tax Ho's in my parade. ...and I did notice you picked up where Bill left off. Sucker. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #470 December 31, 2010 QuoteBut the best of your knowledge is that you know you don't completely understand the tax code. And I signed it knowing all that. No worries about perjury. There's no requirement to fully understand tax code. It's simple really...just hand them your wallet and look away for a split second....you're now good-to-go with the taxman.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #471 December 31, 2010 Quote You said money, not electrons or speed of electrons in orbit nor the curvature of that orbit. Translating monetary weights into gravity acceleration? Changing subject to suit you AGAIN. Feigning surprise here. Just how many billionaires (or anyone else for that matter) keep their money in $ bills. Do you really think Bill Gates keeps 400 tons of bills in his basement? You are just being obtuse and stupid. Financial transactions just involve transfer of electrons these days.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 622 #472 December 31, 2010 Electronic transactions are not measured by weight. I love how you bring a measurement into a conversation only to challenge the meaning of the term you used. Calling me stupid is pretty low perfessor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,411 #473 December 31, 2010 Enough with the PA's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #474 December 31, 2010 QuoteThe good news is there's no reason anyone should ever starve to death in America. The bad news is more and more working Americans, many earning what were once middle class incomes, are spending their time and scarce money to find their next meal. Val Traore, the radiant and gregarious CEO of the Food Bank of South Jersey (FBSJ), wanted to make one thing perfectly clear in our discussion of hunger in America today. "We do not have starvation here in the United States. In Mali," she says, referring to the West African country where about half the population lives below the internationalpoverty lineof $1.25 a day, "if you live in poverty you risk starvation and death. That doesn't happen here in America." It's an important point worth dwelling on. So what is happening here? "We're seeing a large number of families that have never needed food assistance before," reports Traore. How many? So far, for 2010 FBSJ has witnessed a 10% increase in their client base of approximately 100,000 people. Here's the surprise: a large portion of the people needing food assistance today are working, and especially among FBSJ's new clients, many are earning incomes nearly twice the poverty line of $22,055 per year for a family of four (up to 185% of poverty). Who are the hungry and why can't they afford to feed themselves and their families? Increasingly, the shocking answer is this: If you are not financially independent, the odds are good that someday you could be waiting in line to feed yourself and your family. http://www.alternet.org/food/149337/food_emergency%3A_millions_of_americans_are_heading_to_foodbanks_for_the_first_time_in_their_lives/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,411 #475 December 31, 2010 Dreamdancer, Dec 29th: >or keep building palaces while the people starve? From Dreamdancer, Dec 31st: >Val Traore, the radiant and gregarious CEO of the Food Bank of South >Jersey. . . "We do not have starvation here in the United States." Well, we've solved that problem pretty quickly! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next Page 19 of 21 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
nanook 1 #456 December 31, 2010 QuoteIf you don't buy that I may have another story.LOL! I want to hear the story of how you believe that your misunderstanding of tax codes can get you out of hot water with the IRS when you plan to implement them._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #457 December 31, 2010 Go read title 26 - the definition is in there and it's been given to you in the thread. Just because you don't LIKE the definition doesn't make it undefined.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #458 December 31, 2010 QuoteWould it suprise you mnealtx to find that the government was petitioned to answer a number of questions concerning the tax code and refused to answer every point asked? It was never refused. There was many court cases that addressed them. It's even been to the Supreme Court a couple of times._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #459 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteIf you don't buy that I may have another story.LOL! I want to hear the story of how you believe that your misunderstanding of tax codes can get you out of hot water with the IRS when you plan to implement them. Look , there are people I worry about, family and freinds. The IRS is not on my list of worries. I've filed every form the law requires me to file and I've paid every cent of tax the law requires that I pay. Now what about you? Have you read the entire tax code? That thing has more pages than the Bible!!! Do you understand every bit of it?? If you haven't or if you didn't understand every phrase did you perjure yourself when you signed on the line beneath the paragragh that states;"under penalty of perjury I attest that all of the information contained in this return is true to the best of my knowledge"? But the best of your knowledge is that you know you don't completely understand the tax code. Nobody does! Not even the top dog at the IRS. The best of your knowledge is that you don't know. You don't fully understand the tax code. But you signed that line any way and put yourself in jeapordy of a perjury charge,didn't you? Yeah you did. Do you know that failure to file is a misdemeanor. Perjury is a whole different ball of wax. We're talkin' Felonious crimes and big time. Sleep well, Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #460 December 31, 2010 QuoteGo read title 26 - the definition is in there and it's been given to you in the thread. Just because you don't LIKE the definition doesn't make it undefined. "Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction)." That's not a definition of "income",mnealtx. Where do you see income defined in that paragragh? Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #461 December 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteWould it suprise you mnealtx to find that the government was petitioned to answer a number of questions concerning the tax code and refused to answer every point asked? It was never refused. There was many court cases that addressed them. It's even been to the Supreme Court a couple of times. OK then , show us where the supreme court defined income as it relates to the tax code. Fair Winds and UnlimitedCeilings (doesn't that just soften things up a bit before I nail it all down with) "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #462 December 31, 2010 QuoteLook , there are people I worry about, family and freinds. That is noble and honest. But, as I have said before, you have to do the research on your own. You cannot rely on what other people say and take it as faith. It will get you, and worse, your family in trouble. QuoteNow what about you? Have you read the entire tax code? That thing has more pages than the Bible!!! Do you understand every bit of it?? I have been through practically the whole of Subtitle A, B, C, I, as they apply to me. Others, because as a Volunteer Income Tax Assistant for some years, due to required knowledge. I have not read the entire tax code, but I know how to navigate it and stand by for last minute laws to be passed or denied. The bible has more pages and not as navigatable. Pub 17 for personal income taxes is your best friend and will point you everywhere. Quote;"under penalty of perjury I attest that all of the information contained in this return is true to the best of my knowledge"? I understand this quote. This statement is what causes tax deniers to go to jail, like Wesley Snips, and what protects the not-so-experienced from getting prosecuted. They usually just get audited and surprisingly enough, they usually get more money back. QuoteThe best of your knowledge is that you don't know. You don't fully understand the tax code. That's why there are a series of 800 numbers to call if something doesn't seem kosher. If you follow to the letter of the laws, and there is still problems, there are protections guaranteed to you. You won't be prosecuted for ignorance here. The IRS is the least draconian organization I have worked with. They allow for mistakes as long as you will own up to them and it takes an active disregard for taxes before you ever see a judge._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #463 December 31, 2010 Commissioner v. Kowalski United States v. Connor Cullinane v. Commissioner, Lonsdale v. Commissioner Take your pick. There are numerous more anti 16th failures fully documented. Or at least puff puff give. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #464 December 31, 2010 QuoteCommissioner v. Kowalski United States v. Connor Cullinane v. Commissioner, Lonsdale v. Commissioner Take your pick. There are numerous more anti 16th failures fully documented. Or at least puff puff give. What do you think about the recent case involving the previous IRS special agent Joe Bannister? Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings, "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #465 December 31, 2010 Bannister was acquitted. You can't go to jail for giving bad advice and the law was on his side here. But the case wasn't about him. The client he represented, Thompson, was found guilty of two counts of knowingly filing false claims against the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 287, ten counts of willful failure to collect and turn over taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202, and one count of willfully filing a false income tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206 You can't go to jail for giving bad advice, but you can get sued. He was fired from the IRS for providing erroneous advice to taxpayers, including improperly advising them that tax returns were not required because IRS Code sections 861 through 856 define "source of income" in a manner that excluded the income of United States citizens residing in the United States from United States tax. This has been addressed in this thread a couple of times._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #466 December 31, 2010 QuoteEver since Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner screwed up his tax returns we knew he was numerically challenged. But his statement to Congress on December 16, 2010, on the cost of the bailout shows a willful inability to count. Yes, Wall Street has paid back most of our bailout funds. Whoopee! Our economy is in shambles, and millions of people are suffering. With his offensive "no big deal" analysis, Geithner glosses over all this human misery, and sidesteps the hidden costs of the bailout, including the financial insurance we taxpayers provided to every giant financial company in the country via the Fed. On the open market, that insurance -- which guarantees trillions of dollars in toxic assets -- would come at a very steep price. We coughed it up for free. But that's still chump change compared to the human costs of the worst employment crisis since the Great Depression -- the lost income, the depleted savings, the ravaged neighborhoods. Then there's the capsized state and local budgets, the public service reductions, the laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers -- all resulting from a plunge in public revenues caused by Wall Street's crash. Why aren't these costs on Geithner's balance sheet? A cynic might think Tim was priming us to accept the latest round of Wall Street bonuses. Hey -- they paid us back, so why should we care how much they earn? http://www.alternet.org/economy/149361/wall_st%27s_10_biggest_lies_of_2010/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #467 December 31, 2010 Quote I'm beginning to re-think my views on taxation.... Having just returned from 8 days in the Caribbean I have to say that I saw some of the most beautiful ocean-going vessels. Yeah...good fortune tends to skew our reality...edit:I meant to post a laughing face...not a crazy face......but does it seriously matter?...sorry...the truth hurts.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #468 December 31, 2010 Quote...sorry...the truth hurts. you must live a painfree life...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #469 December 31, 2010 Quote Did you procure the required permits to demonstrate? I'm a renegade. They wouldn't allow naked Tax Ho's in my parade. ...and I did notice you picked up where Bill left off. Sucker. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #470 December 31, 2010 QuoteBut the best of your knowledge is that you know you don't completely understand the tax code. And I signed it knowing all that. No worries about perjury. There's no requirement to fully understand tax code. It's simple really...just hand them your wallet and look away for a split second....you're now good-to-go with the taxman.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #471 December 31, 2010 Quote You said money, not electrons or speed of electrons in orbit nor the curvature of that orbit. Translating monetary weights into gravity acceleration? Changing subject to suit you AGAIN. Feigning surprise here. Just how many billionaires (or anyone else for that matter) keep their money in $ bills. Do you really think Bill Gates keeps 400 tons of bills in his basement? You are just being obtuse and stupid. Financial transactions just involve transfer of electrons these days.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #472 December 31, 2010 Electronic transactions are not measured by weight. I love how you bring a measurement into a conversation only to challenge the meaning of the term you used. Calling me stupid is pretty low perfessor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,411 #473 December 31, 2010 Enough with the PA's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #474 December 31, 2010 QuoteThe good news is there's no reason anyone should ever starve to death in America. The bad news is more and more working Americans, many earning what were once middle class incomes, are spending their time and scarce money to find their next meal. Val Traore, the radiant and gregarious CEO of the Food Bank of South Jersey (FBSJ), wanted to make one thing perfectly clear in our discussion of hunger in America today. "We do not have starvation here in the United States. In Mali," she says, referring to the West African country where about half the population lives below the internationalpoverty lineof $1.25 a day, "if you live in poverty you risk starvation and death. That doesn't happen here in America." It's an important point worth dwelling on. So what is happening here? "We're seeing a large number of families that have never needed food assistance before," reports Traore. How many? So far, for 2010 FBSJ has witnessed a 10% increase in their client base of approximately 100,000 people. Here's the surprise: a large portion of the people needing food assistance today are working, and especially among FBSJ's new clients, many are earning incomes nearly twice the poverty line of $22,055 per year for a family of four (up to 185% of poverty). Who are the hungry and why can't they afford to feed themselves and their families? Increasingly, the shocking answer is this: If you are not financially independent, the odds are good that someday you could be waiting in line to feed yourself and your family. http://www.alternet.org/food/149337/food_emergency%3A_millions_of_americans_are_heading_to_foodbanks_for_the_first_time_in_their_lives/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,411 #475 December 31, 2010 Dreamdancer, Dec 29th: >or keep building palaces while the people starve? From Dreamdancer, Dec 31st: >Val Traore, the radiant and gregarious CEO of the Food Bank of South >Jersey. . . "We do not have starvation here in the United States." Well, we've solved that problem pretty quickly! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
