Judge OKs decision to sell widow's home over $6.30 debt

Fox News ^ | 04-28-2014 | Associated Press

[Talisker]

If this is an example of your logic and arguments it's no wonder you're so screwed up.

You mean you thought I was screwed up BEFORE you saw examples of my logic and arguments? Isn’t that a bit biased? After all, I didn’t think you were screwed up until I heard you bragging about misapplying tax laws for political persecution reasons by seizing someone’s car over a thirty-five cent tax assessment. Before knowing that, I would never have judged your character.

IRC 6671 defines which "persons" are subject to the penalty imposed under 6672 for failure to pay taxes withheld from others. It is not a general definition of who is defined as a person for the purposes of being subject to income taxes in general.

Let’s pause right there. Section ONE of Title 26 states that “a tax is IMPOSED.” Now how is something “imposed”? Through enforcement powers, that’s how. So if you can’t enforce something, it can’t be imposed. And people against whom it cannot be imposed are NOT SUBJECT to them. You follow this, or am I going too fast for you?

I frequently used Secs 6671 and 6672 in my former job. My job was CIVIL enforcement, not criminal. I was successful in applying the term "person" as defined in 6671 to a bank and its employees who directed corporate officers not to pay their federal payroll taxes in preference to payments on the corporation's outstanding loans at that bank.

It’s too bad you’re just relying on memory for the actual statute that you are referencing (I know, Google is so tough to use). Because it’s not just “6671,” it’s § 6671 (b), addressing Lien & Levy powers. And that statute states:

The term "person", as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

So I presume you mean lien & levy powers by your phrase “civil enforcement”? And I assume that that’s why you specifically limited what you did “to a bank and its employees who directed corporate officers,” ONLY in relation to their corporate responsibilities - and not their personal, non-corporate activities? Because you knew that that’s the ONLY specification of lien and levy powers in Title 26, right? Except, I mean, for long haired hippies who don’t pay their 35 cent phone tax. Everyone knows there’s a special statute for them, called “eat sh*t and die,” right?

You ARE making the same arguments tax protestors have unsuccessfully used for years to evade payment of income taxes.

Nonsense - YOU YOURSELF limited your own lien and levy powers to the specifications I pointed out in § 6671 (b), so how on earth is this a tax protester argument? You make zero sense and don’t even follow the logic or laws you cite yourself!

I also used Sec 6332 to force banks to pay taxes subject to a Notice of Levy I served, when they offset those funds to loans owed by the delinquent taxpayer. The context which you attempt to apply to Secs 6671, 7343 and 6332 simply does not apply to the circumstances I mentioned in my earlier post.

Of course it applies - or did you forget a bank is a corporation, and Secs 6671, 7343 and 6332 apply to corporate entities and those responsible for the operation and reporting of corporate entities? Also you know that a Notice of Levy is not a “Levy,” and so compels no payment on it’s own - it’s just a notice. And you did file an ACTUAL levy BEFORE you sent the Notice of Levy - right? Since that's what the "notice" is OF? Right? Of course you did, because a bank’s tax attornies would know that you would have to. Regular non-corporate people wouldn’t know it - but then you wouldn’t go after regular non-corporate people with corporate tax laws over their non-corporate activities. Right?

If you are so confident your arguments are sound I encourage you to cite them when you deliberately fail to file a tax return or deliberately fail to pay the tax legally due thereon. Make sure you tell your local newspaper and TV station to make your case known to the IRS.

“Deliberately fail to file” and “deliberately fail to pay” are phrases that refer to those who know they are liable for a tax, and willfully refuse. Now why on Earth would I willfully refuse to file or pay for a tax I lawfully owe? And what part of what I’ve said even remotely declares that such things should be done? None of it, that’s what. That’s why you’re playing these technical word games, to try to make it seem I'm saying people should not pay taxes, when in fact I am going to great pains to say they SHOULD pay the taxes they owe, but that they should also make sure that THEY are the persons NAMED to pay those taxes by the tax laws. And you have a problem with that? Why? Do you think people should pay taxes in obedience to laws that don't include them? Or maybe you don't think people should even read the tax laws - that they should just pay CPAs to tell them what to do, and not bother their little heads abot the big words? Because of course, CPAs like you would NEVER tell anyone to pay taxes based on laws that don't include them in their definitions of taxable persons - right?

And what's with your "local newspapers and TV stations?" Is that some kind of veiled threat? LOL, they're the LAST organizations that would want anyone to read and discuss the tax laws!

You claim to be a CPA. Did you ever make a tax argument for a client that was rejected by the IRS or by the Court? Were you slandared for making it? Were you threatened? Or were you able to protect yourself by being able, if necessary, to point out that the Supreme Court repeatedly has ruled that people are not liable to pay for any more taxes than the law requires, and that the only way to actually do that is to cite the law you believe apply. Isn’t that true?

So why the threats? Why the slander? Why the invocation of "tax protesters"? If you, as a CPA, get refused a tax argument you make, are YOU a "tax protester"? Why not? Aren't you arguing that a certain tax shouldn't be paid on behalf of your client? Aren't you sometimes wrong? Shouldn't you therefore be destroyed for being wrong, slandered for being wrong, jailed for being wrong? No? Why not? You have NO problem when that happens to other people. How did you put it in your previous post? "They deserve what they get." Really? Do "they"? For what - daring to invoke their understanding of the tax laws, just as you do? Or daring to speak without being a CPA?

§§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) repeat the same definitions of the “persons” subject to tax enforcement, and they ALL say: 1) An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs. So why is it so insane merely to point that out? Why is it so dangerous to simply read a list, in the tax laws itself, and point out if someone does NOT fit that description? Isn’t that what these laws are FOR - to define applicability? So why snarl and threaten and slander people who point out that they DON’T fit this definition?

But I’ll give you one thing - actually pointing it out to the IRS or the Court is indeed difficult, and that’s the reason I do NOT advise people to try it. Because in addition to the law itself, there are layers and layers of PROCEDURE that are not admitted or told to people who want to point out this simple thing. The law may not apply, but the government has NOT made clear how to safely point out that the law does not apply. And that’s why many people lose in Court, because they are blocked on procedure - not the actual laws. And in the mean time, people like you use corporate CIVIL procedure to take everything they have, before they can point out that the laws you are using against them don’t actually apply to them.

So let’s just be clear about what, exactly, you’re contemptuously threatening people with. Because unless you’re going after a corporation, you are NOT using the actual tax laws - you’re using naked force in violation of the law, and hiding behind presumptive legal procedures that have nothing whatsoever to do with tax laws. It's exactly the same thing as invoking the plumbing code against a CPA, and seizing all of her property and bank accounts because the plumbing code specifies that she must wear a hard hat at work - and doing all this before she can get to court and point out that she's not a plumber. And then when she does get to court, telling her that because she went to plumbing court, she's implicitly agreeing that she has to obey the plumbing code simply because she "voluntarily agreed" to show up in plumbing court. And then ruling that because of this, she's just another "plumbing protestor," and throwing her in jail for lying about being a plumber who knows damn well she should be obeying the plumbing code, but "willfully refuses" to follow the law.

THAT is what is done with tax laws, and YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT.

And the way the "law" is set up, that whole process is PERFECTLY LEGAL. And THAT is what I'm saying.

So yes, you are getting away with it, and gloating over every second of it, and sleeping well at night.

On that, we can agree.