Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $54,640
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 62%!! Thank you all very much for your continuing support!

Posts by AntiScumbag

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Baltimore police commissioner resigns after federal tax charges

    05/16/2018 2:15:16 AM PDT · 31 of 44
    AntiScumbag to carriage_hill
    Yet a taxpayer can owe a few thousand and they send a SWAT team after him and his family, and use a sock full of quarters to beat him into a confession.

    Ah, no, that's not how it works.

    30 years ago, I owed over 500K and I paid a few hundred bucks monthly under their agreed-upon deal until their 10-year collection period expired. They were quite civil about it. They knew their lien had expired and their collection period had expired and that was that.

    I'm sorry that you really don't know anything about IRS collections or procedures.

    Louis Lerner should probably be in prison for what she and her underlings did to Tea Party 401(c)3 applicants, but that's a separate issue. We taxpayers got to pay 3.5 mill for her abuses.

  • Baltimore police commissioner resigns after federal tax charges

    05/16/2018 1:02:49 AM PDT · 30 of 44
    AntiScumbag to yarddog
    It is technically illegal not to file but if you owe nothing it will usually not be prosecuted.


    Fact: If you have no tax liability for any given year it is entirely legal not to file a return. You cannot be penalized or prosecuted for failing to file a return you were not required to file.

    One might file a return for a year during which you had no taxable income because you had loss carry-forwards, or for many other reasons.

    Typical FR tax and financial illiteracy. Do NOT seek tax advice on this site. Or any other.

  • Three Cheers for Free Trade

    03/17/2016 2:34:48 PM PDT · 128 of 181
    AntiScumbag to central_va
    Trade as a percent of GDP was < 5% in the early 1930’s

    Wrong, as usual. Trade was NOT less than 5% of GDP in 1929. GDP was then 104.6 billion. Exports were 5.9 billion. Imports were 5.6 billion.

    "Trade" was about 11.5 billion. That's about 11%, not "less than 5%."

    In 4 years trade fell to 2 billion of exports and 1.9 billion of imports. 3.9 billion total. Down almost 70%.

    As I pointed out to you here:

    I guess you can't be bothered with any numbers which make you look like a fool.

    Thanks, Smoot-Hawley for dragging the economy down much further than it would have otherwise have fallen! Good job, tariffs! Take a bow, protectionists!

    Now it is $3.5 Trillion out of $17 Trillion = 21%.

    Wrong again, trade is not now 3.5 trillion, that's the 70% damage that could be done to trade by your protectionist nonsense.

    Trade now totals a little over 5 trillion and GDP is about 18 trillion, not 17 trillion. How do you manage to get every single number wrong? It's amazing.

    What's funny is that you are now using my 3.5 trillion damage number that could be done by tariffs. Apparently you are confused. I'm not surprised.

    And 5 trillion in total trade (exports plus imports) is 28% of GDP, not 21%.

    So, yeah, it's a big difference. It's a much bigger and more important difference than you think. Thanks for making my point. Again.

  • Three Cheers for Free Trade

    03/17/2016 12:52:00 PM PDT · 120 of 181
    AntiScumbag to Hawthorn
    What would it take to reach the Trumpian Utopia of an import-free American economy?

    Good question. Our newly-crowned emperor of really, really good, no, make that huge deals, no doubt in consultation with central_va and other assorted geniuses would make all of the necessary economic allocations, perfectly. After all, they know everything or can hire those Top Men who do.

    They wouldn't need a mere 5-year plan, probably more like a 50-year plan.

    So we could achieve "Juche," as the Norks call it, total self-reliance, an "original, brilliant and revolutionary contribution to national and international thought."

    Or something like that. NO IMPORTS, baby! Imports are evil!

    The Norks have annual GDP somewhere around 2K per capita. Nobody knows, that's just a guess, there being no published government figures. And who cares if half of them are starving and eat tree bark?

    In the free-trading US, GDP per capita is about 55K. But, why stop there?

    I'm sure we can drive that number down towards 2K if we exert enough protectionist effort. We, too, can eat tree bark if only we strive for Juche.

  • Three Cheers for Free Trade

    03/17/2016 6:33:10 AM PDT · 89 of 181
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    You’re a funny guy.

    So far, you’ve called me a fascist, a free “traitor” and suggested that I should be “put in either insane asylums or concentration camps.”

    That’s some really fine ad hominem stuff. You should be proud of your inability to argue anything effectively.

    I understand that you have a problem getting out of the 1800s and with anyone who points out that your “arguments” hold no water.

    Just for instance, what I actually said was that most of the jobs that have left over MANY DECADES were union, it’s got nothing to do with what’s left.

    All you did was make my point. Unionization has gone from 50% or so in the late ‘40s to 6-7% today. And still declining.

    Why? Their over-paid jobs are exported or automated, had to happen. What can’t go on won’t go on. Any way you slice it, the result is the same — no over-paid job. Competition won’t allow it, much as you might want central planning.

    Oops, you were wrong again. Which maintains your record of being 0% correct.

    Sink your teeth into this. Extorting above-market wages is not a viable business plan in the long-term.

    Nonetheless, rant on, dude. As I’m sure you will. Too bad nobody with active synapses really cares what you say.

  • Three Cheers for Free Trade

    03/17/2016 4:50:27 AM PDT · 59 of 181
    AntiScumbag to olezip
    First, how "free" is free trade?

    Doesn't matter. No trade the US has EVER conducted has been "free" or "equal" or "fair" -- that was always a fantasy that doesn't matter.

    Who cares how "fair" it is? Nobody. People buy stuff from those durn furriners because they consider it to be to their advantage to do so under the terms at the time. Always have, always will.

    Second exactly why do Trump, Clinton, and Sanders lambast [sic] free trade?

    Because they are all economic illiterates and they think it sounds good to make idiotic "arguments" against trade.

    The amount of economic nonsense of this and every trade thread here is astounding.

    Most people here get the fact that a minimum wage (regardless of level) is a bad idea and increases unemployment. How is it that they don't also get that tariffs/protectionism is far, far worse?

    That if implemented on any serious basis it would cost everyone hundreds of billions to protect a few jobs that aren't worth protecting. Huge net negative to the economy. Sorta like increasing the minimum wage, but on a much bigger scale.

    Most jobs that have left -- mostly unionized low-skill, no-skill jobs -- aren't something you would want to do or want your kid to do for more than a week.

    The union above-market wage extortion scheme has been imploding for 50 years. Surprise, surprise, wages have been stagnant for decades as this process works itself out.

    Even with no trade at all, all of those "lost" jobs would have been automated out of existence, out of necessity.

    Get over it. Our problem isn't trade, it's a useless education system and ridiculous regulations and high taxes.

    If you have no skills that aren't common, you're gonna get paid accordingly, if at all. I say "if at all" because the taxes and regulations may wind up meaning the business that might have paid you could wind up being formed in some other country because of the US tax and regulatory scheme.

    Oops, you're outta luck. Nothing to do with trade.

  • The Unseen Cost Of Saving Jobs With Tariffs

    03/09/2016 6:31:11 PM PST · 160 of 218
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    You know, you really need to get out of the 1800s.

    In FY2015, total US federal tax revenue from all sources was about 3.25 trillion.

    How much of that was from tariffs-duties-customs charges?

    About 35 billion.

    That’s about 1% of total federal revenue. A hair over. 1.08%.

    Let’s go back to 1950. 407 million in tariffs. Out of 39.4 billion total revenue.

    How about that? 1.03%

    The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh? Those 1% or so numbers are headed slowly toward zero over the next 50-100 years whether you like it or not.

    Yeah, they jiggle around a little from year to year, but they’re coming down from 5% in 1940. You know, the hangover from Smoot-Hawley.

    Why? Everyone in the world understands that tariffs are counter-productive and make everyone worse off. Which is why tariff percentages have been in a relentless downtrend for 80 years.

    Face it. You can blather on ad infinitum and ad nauseam but we’re not going back to a tariff-based tax collection system. We’ve gotten rid of 80+% of it and we’re working on the remnants.

    Not to mention that we’re not dumb enough to kill world trade with idiotic tariffs that result in every economy taking a hit, perhaps 20% in our case, contrary to what you may think.

  • The Unseen Cost Of Saving Jobs With Tariffs

    03/09/2016 6:21:53 PM PST · 159 of 218
    AntiScumbag to Mase

    Now, our little protectionist buddy from VA thinks the founders would have strung all of us “butt boys” up from the nearest tree.

    That he misses the irony in what he says is truly comical.

    What can you do with someone like that?

    Seems to be the Dunning–Kruger effect at work. Maybe he’ll look it up but I doubt it’ll do any good.

  • The Unseen Cost Of Saving Jobs With Tariffs

    03/09/2016 1:24:07 PM PST · 136 of 218
    AntiScumbag to Mase

    Our little friend from VA is incorrigibly ignorant.

    Once his “arguments” are exposed as nonsense, anyone doing so instantly becomes unpatriotic or a communist or worse.

    He really should join the Bernie campaign, he being so smart and happy to pay an extra “few cents on the dollar” so that some moron can keep an overpaid union job for a while.

    And, of course, he’s only too happy to require that everyone else also pay through the nose. Just because he said so. Because only he knows best.

    Why, he’s so smart that he knows better than the entire US economy, if only it would listen to him and his fellow central planners. Why, just wait, he’ll come up with a 5-year plan any time now.

    There’s a lot of totalitarian in every protectionist when you get right down to it.

    The protectionist nitwittery on FR hasn’t ever stopped in 18 years and probably never will. They loves their stupid tariffs, even though the country was already put through their wringer over 80 years ago.

    It’s actually kinda funny. Our Dear Leader Jug-ears loves the utterly failed policies of the 1930s and so do the protectionists.

  • The Unseen Cost Of Saving Jobs With Tariffs

    03/09/2016 6:22:28 AM PST · 74 of 218
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    You never stop with your incessant trade nonsense, do you?

    I’ve already explained why your simple-minded garbage about tariffs is ridiculous nonsense.

    Smoot-Hawley managed to reduce trade by about 70% in the early ‘30s. Today, with just shy of an 18 trillion GDP, do you want to whack international trade by 70%?

    That would be about 1.9 trillion in US imports, over 10% of GDP.

    It would happen quickly. Impose a 35% tariff on Chinese goods. Followed by immediate retaliation by the Chinese.

    Followed by more US tariffs on everyone who rushed to fill the Chinese void. Followed by more retaliation by all of those countries. And back and forth and so on and so forth and on and on until someone finally came to their senses many years later. It’s called a trade war.

    Which would take down another 1.6 trillion of exports.

    Total damage to the economy in short order? 3.5 trillion.

    20% of the entire economy.

    Never mind the add-on effects of knocking 20% of the economy on its butt. Never mind the shortages and rapidly increasing prices costing people hundreds and hundreds of billions and the depression it would trigger.

    For what? So that a handful of people in industries which no longer exist in the US could have jobs that you pine for at some distant future point that pay spit?

    You really have no economic clue at all. Go read some Ricardo on comparative advantage and get back to us when you have a better grasp of things.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  • It’s tax season and you know that means… or do you?

    03/07/2016 4:35:31 AM PST · 7 of 30
    AntiScumbag to HomerBohn

    This article is a hot, steaming pile of crap.

    Income taxes aren’t a fraud or a deception on anyone, they’re just a bad way to raise revenue. A consumption tax being the obvious alternative.

    How about that? We could throw out about 70,000 pages of regulatory details and rules and nobody would have any reason to lobby for this or that special treatment in the future.

    Not to mention that we could get rid of maybe 90-95,000 of our 100,000 IRS employees.

    A tax that encourages investment. No special treatment possible. I’ll vote for that and anyone who supports it every single time.

  • News for the elites: We're already in a trade war and we're losing our ass!

    03/03/2016 10:00:04 PM PST · 46 of 71
    AntiScumbag to Jim Robinson
    OK, you asked. Here's some answers.

    What do we manufacture in the U.S. anymore?

    Lots of stuff, just not the junk that's in Walmart from China or wherever that everyone talks about. Somebody else can make the easy, low-tech/no-tech cheap stuff.

    Most of the stuff we make and export is stuff nobody is familiar with or sees on a shelf in a store. Mostly high-tech, high cost capital goods, not cheap consumer junk anyone can make.

    Airplanes. Heavy equipment. Computer-controlled equipment of all types. Other highly sophisticated, high-tech manufacturing stuff. Etc., etc. None of it is on a shelf at Walmart.

    Total, about 4 trillion of goods in 2015. Plus, we exported about 1.5 trillion of goods. Total about 5.5 trillion. About 31% of GDP.

    By way of comparison, in 1980 goods were about 36% of GDP.

    So, there's been a very slight, very slow decline on a percentage basis over the last 35 years. Not a big deal. .17% of GDP per year. Despite that slight drag, the total value of manufacturing in the US continues to set records.

    Table 1.1.5

    Kinda like 200 years ago when 98% of employment was in farming. Now, farming is maybe 1% of total employment, yet our farms produce 1000 times as much and we're the world's largest agricultural exporter.

    Where have all our manufacturing jobs gone?

    To the extent that there has been a loss of jobs, unions can take most of the credit. Extorting above-market wages has been going on for about 70 years and it doesn't work.

    Slowly but surely some over-paid manufacturing jobs have left, permanently. Textiles, shoes, toys, etc., etc.

    50 years ago there was still a lot of low-skill manufacturing going on. Tab A in slot B is a job anyone can do with no skill, so it's going to go elsewhere over time, even without a union accelerating it.

    Why can't we be competitive?

    We're competitive in many industries, we dominate many, but in some we're not because: 1) Unions. 2) Regulations.

    Why are our costs so high?

    Same deal. Throw in a lack of being able to compete internationally due to our stupid system of corporate taxation.

    Is government the solution or the problem?

    Nothing the government does ever makes US business more competitive.

    Government enabled unions and we still suffer the ill-effects.

    Government constantly enacts new regulations and we suffer the ever-increasing ill-effects.

    Government runs the "education" system which throws out increasing numbers of unemployable illiterates.

    No surprise that any business that possibly can will use robotics and technology to replace them or avoid having to hire them at all.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    03/03/2016 5:40:26 AM PST · 192 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    I’ll bet you do file “several” tax forms with the IRS annually.

    Let’s see. Start with a false 1040.

    To that, add one or more false “corrected” 1099s. Problem is that the only entity capable of filing a corrected 1099 is the original filer. That ain’t you. That’s whoever paid you the money you don’t want to report. So, instead, you make stuff up. Bad idea.

    And, then, how about some false 4852s? Nothing like admitting guilt by taking a specific action to carry out your tax evasion by trying to zero-out your reported W-2 amounts by “correcting” them to zero, eh?

    Sounds like a trifecta of false filings. 3 years in the pen plus 250K each, max. You’ll probably get 2-3 years or so, total. Go for it.

    BTW, WorldNutDaily is full of it, as usual. The DH case has no implications for free speech or anything else. It only has implications for the idiotic DH. The guy who wrote that sorry excuse for an “article” is an idiot, not unlike you.

    The judge ordered DH to file accurate returns. She refused. She was indicted, tried and convicted by a jury and sentenced for criminal contempt of court. It’s that simple.

    Unless you believe in TP magic words that never, ever work.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    03/01/2016 4:44:06 AM PST · 188 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    BTW, I recommend that you read judge Buch’s take-down of PH and CtC and CtC “educated” returns.

    Most federal judges, whether District or Circuit or Tax Court don’t bother with details when they’re faced with total nonsense. They usually just quote Crain v. Commissioner:

    “We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.”

    Judge Buch actually took the time.

    Pretty amazing. Shocking, actually. Most of them can’t be bothered by nitwits and other purveyors of total junk and really, really stupid nonsense.

    Buch wrote a comprehensive, detailed opinion, which he certainly didn’t have to do. It was a slap-down of another of PH’s idiot adherents, namely Steven Waltner.

    Needless to say, Waltner lost. They all do. And he was sanctioned $2,500 by Buch for delaying and wasting the court’s time. Waltner was lucky, the sanction could have been up to 25K.

    Buch takes PH’s useless book apart, chapter by chapter. Cover to cover. It’s a classic delineation of the fact that what you seem to think is the “truth” is utter and total rubbish and nonsense. And why it loses every single time.

    Read and be warned. The only reason you haven’t been called to account for your self-admitted tax evasion is that the IRS is incompetent.

    Slow to figure things out. Stupid, as in believing rubbish people like you spout. Anyone at the IRS who bought your BS was obviously a low-level employee, not someone who knew what they were doing. Close enough for government work, right?

    Works for a while. But, even the idiotic government figures things out eventually. Took them years to catch on to PH and all the rest of them.

    If you ever receive any IRS correspondence from Ogden, UT, you’ll know that you’re now on the TP griddle. Ogden is where they send all of the returns they think might be from evaders/TPs. You know, as in fraudulent. They have an entire office devoted to pursuing people like Schiff, PH and their followers. Like you.

    Once you’re on that radar, you’re screwed. There’s no longer any question that you’ll be sued for amounts due if you don’t pay upon demand, the question becomes whether your case merits referral to the Criminal Investigation Division. Oops.

    I really don’t care if you want to expose yourself to civil suit and/or criminal indictment as you play your stupid little TP tax evasion games. You might get away with it for another 10 years.

    Then again, you might not.

    The IRS doesn’t like morons squawking about getting away with evading taxes. And this is a public forum. IRS and DoJ people read forums like this looking for idiots who brag about their tax evasion.

    Probably not a good thing to do, huh?

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/29/2016 9:54:05 PM PST · 187 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Nothing to do with evasion, eh? You really are dense.

    False filings are all about evasion. False numbers are filed which results in less or no tax due — you know, what most people call evading taxes. Which is why I use the term colloquially.

    The feds tend to use false filing charges instead of the evasion statute because they are easier to prove. The end result is the same as the sentencing guidelines revolve around the tax loss and criminal history.

    PH, who is also permanently enjoined from using his nonsense on his own returns caught 10 felony counts of filing false documents. Four false 1040s and 6 false 4852s.

    Convicted on all 10 counts. Sentenced to federal prison.

    And you want to quibble over which statute was used to convict him.

    PH and Schiff are and were equally full of nonsense. I think everyone has a 1st amendment right to make a fool of themselves by publishing any nonsense they wish. In Schiff’s case, he — and only he — was banned from selling his book because it was held to be false commercial speech, commercial speech being less protected.

    That the same principle had different results for PH doesn’t say anything about his book being “true” at all. In fact, it’s total nonsense from cover to cover.

    He’s the idiot who went to prison because of his nonsense and his “educated” returns. Just like Schiff. So keep driving, PH’s ignorance is at least as great as was Schiff’s.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/28/2016 8:07:38 PM PST · 185 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Relax, dude.

    I realize that you’re way out of your depth and that you can’t make even the slightest semblance of a coherent argument, but there’s no need to act like a 3rd-grader.

    If you were a liberal, I’d be encouraging you to dig your tax-evasion hole even deeper. Go for it. Screw the evil goobermint.

    But, you’re supposedly a conservative, albeit one who is hideously ill-informed about tax law. I explained it in detail but your ignorance is truly invincible.

    That’s classic self-serving TP behavior — love the result, as in no income tax due — but damn the multitude of inconvenient facts that prove them all to be blithering idiots.

    Ask Irwin Schiff. Well, no, actually you can’t, he died in federal prison for his TP zero-return stupidity after, what was it? His 3rd federal conviction, or was it his 4th? I forget, there’ve been so many.

    You, for instance, sorta like Irwin, won’t give up even when your lies have been beaten to a bloody pulp for days on end. It took years for the courts to beat his nonsense down, but it happened.

    In his last criminal trial he admitted that he might be mentally ill. Then he tried to turn it into a defense. Didn’t work.

    PH, another convicted federal tax felon on whose words you obviously hang — you link to his site and quote his fake case cites — is already a has-been TP “guru” as his very few remaining followers are quite mad about why they always lose and never, ever win.

    So, go right ahead.

    Try to cough up even a single victory by PH or any of his followers in any federal court for the nonsense you and PH put forth.

    You can’t do it because no such thing exists. Nonsense always loses. Every single time. Over and over again. It’s totally predictable.

    There’s nothing I can do if you want to keep drinking the TP Kool-Aid, regardless of the vendor — PH is just one of many.

    You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

    I wish you a lot of luck, mainly because you’re gonna need a lot of it if you continue down the sad path that you’re on.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/27/2016 8:49:41 PM PST · 182 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Liar? That’s rich coming from a guy who tosses out one lie after another.

    You have yet to manage to respond substantively to ANYTHING I’ve said pointing out your non-stop nonsense. You just keep changing the subject with more nonsense or spouting insults.

    Here are the names of 6 PH-followers who came to regret it: Artman, Dowling, Golson, Gerstenkorn and Spitzer.

    The DoJ complaints and court cases are on-line, you can look them up yourself. Those 6 alone were good for 140K+ in judgments. That’s just through 2008, there have been many more since.

    Including PH and his wife being sent to federal prison because of his idiotic book.

    PH, his wife and all of his followers put together have never won in any civil or criminal action or appeal. Not once. And they never will, no matter how many windmills they tilt at.

    Before you dig your tax evasion hole any deeper, you should call that CPA you ditched 10+ years ago. He might save you some money, not to mention prison time. Unlike you, he actually knows what he’s talking about.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/27/2016 7:25:05 PM PST · 180 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Why are you babbling about the Internal Revenue Manual? It means nothing in court.

    Why are you posting useless links about an irrelevant case?

    Audits? Of course you’re wrong. The last one covered about 5 mill of gross revenue for one year. Result. No change, not even a penny.

    The IRS is well aware of PH and his nonsense, not to mention his followers and the kind of junk they put on their returns. They have pursued many of them and won every single time. You better hope that you’re never audited again.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/27/2016 7:14:44 PM PST · 179 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Never let it be said that ever miss an opportunity to put your ignorance on display.

    US v Allegheny was a PROPERTY tax case. That’s even more irrelevant than a fake cite to a corporate tax case.

    You clearly don’t yet understand that whether or not something is or is not somehow related to the feds has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether something is income.

    And then you trot out yet more nonsense from Hendrickson — his “includes and including” rubbish. What’s next? His I’m not a “person” baloney?

    It’s comical. TPs whine and complain about laws being unclear. Then, when Congress adds some words to reduce possible confusion such as “includes the performance of the functions of a public office” (you know, like a judge) TPs try to twist it to mean the exact opposite of what the words mean.

    See, way back when, some thought that the income of federal judges couldn’t be taxed. The courts said it could be. That’s why those specific words “public office” are there. To remove all doubt from the minds of the uninformed.

    Perhaps anticipating Hendrickson’s nonsense, they added the sentence “... ‘includes’ and ‘including’ (...) shall NOT be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined” [emphasis added].

    Get it? Using the word “public” excludes no other thing from the meaning. Private, for instance.

    You’re about as good as Hendrickson at “legal interp” — that is, not good at all. Horrible, in fact.

    If you doubt that, there are many, many federal court decisions referring to him and his utterly stupid book, including many against people who bought his book and were dumb enough to believe it.

    Every bogus idea he has ever concocted has been slapped down by one or more federal judges as frivolous. You should read some of those decisions instead of junk that means nothing.

    The poor guy even has something almost nobody else has — a permanent federal injunction against filing his own tax returns using his crack-pot ideas.

    Keep it up. Your name could wind up on a federal civil tax lawsuit or federal criminal tax indictment, too.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/27/2016 5:23:11 PM PST · 171 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    So, did you miss the all-important fact that Southern Pacific v Lowe was a case about dividends paid to one corporation by another, wholly-owned corporation under the corporation income tax act of 1913?

    Do you understand that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the federal taxation of individual income? Not then. Not now. Not ever.

    Did you miss the simple fact that your “quote” is a total fake and fabrication? It is of course, straight from Hendrickson because a convicted federal tax felon is a go-to kind of guy when it comes to tax advice.

    Notice how he leaves out any mention that the case deals with corporate income tax law (at the time) and not the taxation of individuals?

    Go read the decision and try and find your “quoted” words in the text. Can’t be done, they ain’t there.

    Now, I don’t know if Hendrickson concocted that pile of junk you call a quote or if it had been floating around the internet for years and he just decided to use it to fool himself and others.

    Doesn’t matter, neither he nor you have any idea of what you are talking about.

    Speaking of the legal definition of income, here ya go:

    26 U.S. Code § 61 - Gross income defined
    (a) General definition. Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
    (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
    (2) Gross income derived from business;
    (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
    (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends; (...)

    And the list goes on.

    It’s really very simple — if it isn’t later specifically exempted in the IRC, it’s income and that’s that. And as has said every single federal court that has ever ruled on it.

    Nowhere in the entire IRC will you find a word about federal privilege or any of the other nonsense Hendrickson foists on the unsuspecting public.

    The only mentions of him and his goofy theories by federal courts are to dismiss his nonsense as frivolous.

    See, the only thing that various tax protester types like without exception is the self-serving outcome — no tax due! Until you get caught.