Posted on 02/13/2005 10:41:05 AM PST by nsmart
read post 433 and comment.
Thank you for your constructive comments.
Oh, now there's appealing to expert opinion for you...
Given our experience with taxing authorities, I would assume that they will say that whichever party to a transaction they can get their hands on should be made to prove that the tax was paid or pay up. I can see someone showing up on your doorstep, flashing a badge, and demanding to see proof that taxes were paid on that Cadillac in your driveway. If you say "Go see the guy who sold it to me. His name was Vinnie and I answered his ad in the paper. I forget his address", I don't think that they are exactly going to say "Thank you for the information, sir. Sorry to have disturbed you. Have a nice day."
Really??????? Where does it say that in the bill? The actual bill says just the opposite!
`(b) Examinations and Audits- The sales tax administering authority has the authority to conduct at a reasonable time and place examinations and audits of persons who are or may be liable to collect and remit tax imposed by this subtitle and to examine the books, papers, records, or other data of such persons which may be relevant or material to the determination of tax due.
It was as constructive as your comments, which dismissed well researched and documented facts with nothing.
I can see someone showing up on your doorstep, flashing a badge, and demanding to see proof that taxes were paid on that Cadillac in your driveway.
Perhaps you will explain the probable cause for the warrant to allow state retail tax authorities to so demand? Vinnie your favorite fence or black market supplier?
`(a) IN GENERAL- Any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider the purposes of this subtitle (as set forth in subsection (b)) as the primary aid in statutory construction.
`(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this subtitle are as follows:
`(5) To provide for the administration of the tax law in a manner that respects privacy, due process, individual rights when interacting with the government, the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, and the presumption of lawful behavior in civil proceedings.
Exactly, but somehow the NRSTers are insistant that Purchasers are immune from any action, when their own bill clearly says otherwise. Getting these people to admit obvious facts is like pulling teeth.
Principles of interpretation are nice, but the law is still the law, and what the meat of the bill says is what counts.
However, as far as sales tax collection is concerned there must be a probable cause for the state tax authorities to even get to the point of inquiring about prior payment of tax under the provisions of presumption of innocence and lawful behaviour in the Principles of Interpretation as pointed out in #416.
Really??????? Where does it say that in the bill? The actual bill says just the opposite!
`(a) IN GENERAL- Any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider the purposes of this subtitle (as set forth in subsection (b)) as the primary aid in statutory construction.
`(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this subtitle are as follows:
`(5) To provide for the administration of the tax law in a manner that respects privacy, due process, individual rights when interacting with the government, the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, and the presumption of lawful behavior in civil proceedings.
Principles of interpretation are nice, but the law is still the law, and what the meat of the bill says is what counts.
Yep, and the explicit Principles of Interpretation is a direct duty laid upon the courts and tax administrators by the Fair Tax Act.
`(a) IN GENERAL- Any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider the purposes of this subtitle (as set forth in subsection (b)) as the primary aid in statutory construction.
`(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this subtitle are as follows:
`(5) To provide for the administration of the tax law in a manner that respects privacy, due process, individual rights when interacting with the government, the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, and the presumption of lawful behavior in civil proceedings.
`(c) SECONDARY AIDS TO STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- As a secondary aid in statutory construction, any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider--
- `(3) construe any ambiguities in this Act in favor of reserving powers to the States respectively, or to the people.
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."FOSTER v. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 118 (1938)
"Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose."
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344,351 (1943)
"... courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.
"In deciding a question of statutory construction, we begin of course with the language of the statute." Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 US 184, 112 L Ed 2d 608, 111 S Ct. 599, (1991)
"When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction--that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there-is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US ____, p. ____, 117 L.Ed 2nd 391(1992)
"Rules of statutory construction are to be invoked as aids to the ascertainment of the meaning or application of words otherwise obscure or doubtful. They have no place, as this court has many times held, except in the domain of ambiguity." Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 414, 421, 44 L. Ed. 219, 222, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 155; United States v. Barnes, 222 U. S. 513, 518, 519, 56 L. Ed. 291-293, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 117. Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States., 261 US 514, pp. 517.
"In construing a federal statute, it is presumable that Congress legislates with knowledge of the United States Supreme Court's basic rules of statutory construction." MCNARY v HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, 498 US 479, 112 L Ed 2d 1005, 111 S Ct. 888, (1991)
As in all cases involving statutory construction, "our starting point must be the language employed by Congress," Reiter v Sonotone Corp., 442 US 330, 337, 60 L Ed 2d 931, 99 S Ct. 2326 (1979) (emphasis added), and we assume "that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used." Richards v United States, 369 US 1, 9, 7 L Ed 2d 492, 82 S Ct. 585 (1962)
Thus "[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 US 102, 108, 64 L Ed 2d 766, 100 S Ct. 2051 (1980). (remarks of Sen. Dirksen). As Senator (emphasis added) "When the terms of a statute are unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete except in rare and exceptional circumstances." FREYTAG v. COMMISSIONER, 501 US 115 L Ed 2d 764, pp. 767 - 9/73
"In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue, judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning--in all but the most extraordinary circumstance--is finished; courts must give effect to the clear meaning of statutes as written." Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 US 120 L Ed 2d 379, 112 S Ct. 2589 (1992)
"It is not a function of the United States Supreme Court to sit as a super-legislature and create statutory distinctions where none were intended." AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. v PATTERSON, 456 US 63, 71 L Ed 2d 748, 102 S Ct. 1534
"(T)he court's task is to determine whether the language the legislators actually enacted has a plain, unambiguous meaning." Beecham v. United States, 511 US 128 L Ed 2d 383 (1994)
"The United States Supreme Court cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute." FEDERAL TRADE COM. v SIMPLICITY PATTERN CO., 360 US 55, p. 55, 475042/56451
"The starting point in any endeavor to construe a Statute is always the words of the Statute itself; unless Congress has clearly indicated that its intentions are contrary to the words it employed in the Statute, this is the ending point of interpretation." Fuller v. United States 615 F. Supp. 1054 (D.C. Cal 1985) , West's Key 188 quoting Richards v. United States 369 US 1, 9, 82 S. Ct. 585, 590, 7 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1962)
"Noisy neighbor" should be "nosy neighbor." Although she may be both "noisy" and "nosy."
Witness the BATF, etc. They will have "gut feeling" that the required taxes were not paid on your newly acquired Cadillac (your noisy neighbor having told them that you told her that you got a "good deal"). This will be enough to satisfy a court, should you be so bold as to take the matter to court.
You care to show a section of Title 26 that is even a remotely worded like HR26. Have fun finding it, it nothing at all for folks to tack there civil rights case on where current tax law and its "civil" enforcement is concerned.
In which case your argument is null for any tax system and you just as well go to one putting as much distance between the federal government and the individal as possible, such as the NRST and its use of state authorities for administration of the tax system.
`(b) Examinations and Audits- The sales tax administering authority has the authority to conduct at a reasonable time and place examinations and audits of persons who are or may be liable to collect and remit tax imposed by this subtitle and to examine the books, papers, records, or other data of such persons which may be relevant or material to the determination of tax due.
There is no probable cause listed in the bill. If they think you owe tax, they can audit you. Simple as that. Dispute what the bill actually says, not what you want it to say.
There is no probable cause listed in the bill.
Probable cause is what the cop comes up with to justify to a court the basis for his reason to believe you are in violation of law to justify appoaching you.
No probabable cause, i.e. no objective reason to believe a violation has occured, like the snitch next door watching you buy that car from Vinny, no cause to bother you.
I know what probable cause is, and the text of the bill that talks about audits, clearly says no probable cause is needed. If they think you may owe tax, guess what, they can audit you. Dispute what is clearly laid out in the bill. You make all these posts with big words and big thoughts, but you can't dispute simple points. Sometimes I really wonder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.