Posted on 05/12/2005 12:25:08 AM PDT by FairOpinion
There are all sorts of reasons for the NRST police to come audit the average person.
No authority in the legislation to audit the individual only a business.
If an individual seems
You draw a lot of dead hypotheticals and strawmen, but not once have you shown authority for random audit of individual citizens in the legislation.
All you list may singly or in combination provide cause for a search warrant by a court with showing of sufficient cause, not an audit.
There are lots of circumstances where the NRST police might think some individual is liable for tax and are subject to an audit
There are lots of circumstance where police migh think some individual has committed any number of civil or criminal offenses, no audit, but plenty of search warrants, and court orders when sufficient cause exists for a cause of action.
Just a descriptive statement in the law that says collect and remit will do nothing to prevent the NRST police from knocking on your door.
True with search warrant in hand and probable cause, or subpenoe backed up by court order to produce records for a grand jury, or civil discovery action. Not an audit in the night.
If the tax man suspects you owe tax, even as an individual, he will be coming.
If the taxman under the NRST has probable cause and warrant is issued, r by subpoena under grand jury, or by court ordered discovery process in a civil action. But not on mere suspicion.
You are living in fantasy world if you don't think the sales tax man will come after consumers
I have yet to see an audit or even inquiry as to whether or not I paid a state retail sales tax on my goodies. Seen plenty of businesses audited as matter of course though which law expressly authorizes.
Then again with probable cause, and proper search warrant or court order in civil action much is possible for many reasons, taxes are only one.
You just need to look at how states are tracking down individuals who avoid cigarette taxes to see what will go on with an NRST tax.
Once again, I have yet to see an audit or even inquiry as to whether or not I paid a state retail sales tax on my goodies or smokes for that matter. Nor have I ever head of such a case targeting an individual lacking search warrant with sufficient cause for the search behind it. Not random audits on individual citizens' home finances.
who may not realize how high their income tax brackets are when calculated as tax exclusive
An income tax can't be calculated "tax exclusive".
Sure it can, you can calculate on the basis of whats left from government claiming its cut. Very easy formula to convert betweent the two systems.
Te= Ti/ (1 - Ti)
Where Te= Tax exclusive rate and Ti= Tax inclusive rate.
For example, the a 17% (tax-inclusive) flat tax has a tax-exclusive rate of 20.48%.
(0.1700 / (1.0000 - 0.1700) = 0.2048)
For the NRST as proposed by HR 25, the 23% inclusive rate comes out to 29.87%.
(0.2300 / (1.0000 - 0.2300) = 0.2987)
| Inclusive Rate | Description | Exclusive Rate |
|---|---|---|
| 4.76% | Sample State Sales Tax --> | 5.00% |
| 10.00% | <-- Penalty for IRA/401k Early Withdrawal | 11.11% |
| 15.00% | <-- Marginal Income Tax | 17.65% |
| 15.00% | <-- NRST (not including SS/Medicare) | 17.65% |
| 15.30% | <-- Social Security/Medicare Payroll Tax | 18.06% |
| 17.00% | <-- Flat Tax (not including SS/Medicare) | 20.48% |
| 20.00% | <-- Capital Gains Tax | 25.00% |
| 23.00% | <-- NRST (including SS/Medicare) | 29.87% |
| 28.00% | <-- Marginal Income Tax | 38.89% |
| 32.30% | <-- Flat Tax (including SS/Medicare) | 47.71% |
| 39.00% | <-- Marginal Income Tax | 63.93% |
| 54.30% | <-- Max Margin Income/Payroll tax rate | 118.81% |
Note that any tax-inclusive rate larger than 50% would have a tax-exclusive rate of over 100%. And you figure that tax-exclusive measures are a good basis for judging the actual effect of tax burdens relative to your resources to pay them? Pitiful.
Not true at all. The bill is quite clear if the government thinks you might owe taxes you are subject to an audit. Individuals included.
If the taxman under the NRST has probable cause and warrant is issued, r by subpoena under grand jury, or by court ordered discovery process in a civil action. But not on mere suspicion.
The bill is quite clear on this point to. If the NRST police ask you to produce records (including 510 receipts) you must produce the records. Here's the wording from the bill:
`SEC. 506. BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PRODUCTION. `In all disputes concerning taxes imposed by this subtitle, the person engaged in a dispute with the sales tax administering authority or the Secretary, as the case may be, shall have the burden of production of documents and records but the sales tax administering authority or the Secretary shall have the burden of persuasion.
There is no provision here for warrants or probable cause or court orders. YOU HAVE THE BURDON TO PRODUCE RECORDS. No ands, ifs, or buts about it. But I know you will be unpersuaded by the black and white facts. They have never persuaded you before no matter how clearly that were laid out in front of you. I know you are smarter than that. You never concede a point even when you are obviously wrong.
That's because the rates are low and compliance is fairly high. The problem comes with the higher rates such as you are proposing. There was an article on the cigarette tax evasion just a week or two ago. States have cracked down on individuals. They subpoenaed records from Internet resellers and put liens on all their customers for fines and unpaid taxes. So when avoidance becomes a problem, you better believe the tax man will use every trick in the book to track it down, including going after the individuals.
You are correct, I was mistaken, as HR25shows:So should I accept the fact that you were mistaken (as happens to everyone on occasion) or should I continually bring it up as evidence that you are a "flip-flopper," a liar, etc.?
I said the 3 had income tax (not flat tax) in addition to a VAT.So when you said "The links o the VAT countries describe how exemptions, excemtions and - in addition - income tax are all part of the VAT/flat scene in actual practice" in post #160 you didn't mean "flat tax"? You're getting pretty weaselly.
Oh, and don't hold your breath for the revenue neutral requirement info (#157). It is both common sense (which you like to think you have) and available via your search engine.Check your buddy AG's post in #166. The PayGo rules expired a year ago. So when you said revenue neutrality was "required for Congress to enact such a law" you were either misspeaking, mistaken, or lying. Which was it.
Looks like you'd never make it through Government 101 and thats a shame since it is a prerequisite for Government Taxation 101.
They subpoenaed records from Internet resellers and put liens on all their customers for fines and unpaid taxes.
Note it took a court order backed by cause to accomplish, not just the suspicion of the tax man that something might be going on.
The point being random audits of individuals such as you posited are not authorized under the NRST legislation. Note that the cigarette case involved the courts getting in on the action and full investigation under authority, not merely banging on citizens doors.
So when avoidance becomes a problem, you better believe the tax man will use every trick in the book to track it down, including going after the individuals.
Every trick authorized by law I'm sure you mean. Now where is that provision you were telling us gives the state tax bureaus the authority to conduct random audits on individual citizens. This little diddy you pulled up out of context of the Chapter lacks the grant of authority, that is found in section 508 under which burden of production arises in the first place.
The bill is quite clear on this point to. If the NRST police ask you to produce records (including 510 receipts) you must produce the records. Here's the wording from the bill:
`SEC. 506. BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PRODUCTION. `In all disputes concerning taxes imposed by this subtitle, the person engaged in a dispute with the sales tax administering authority or the Secretary, as the case may be, shall have the burden of production of documents and records but the sales tax administering authority or the Secretary shall have the burden of persuasion.
What you fail to note is that the only persons the bill authorizes this burden of production for, is by summons, to persons "who are or may be liable to collect and remit tax", those engaged in business.
`SEC. 508. SUMMONS, EXAMINATIONS, AUDITS, ETC.
- `(a) Summons- Persons are subject to administrative summons by the sales tax administering authority for records, documents, and testimony required by the sales tax administering authority to accurately determine liability for tax under this subtitle. A summons shall be served by the sales tax administering authority by an attested copy delivered in hand to the person to whom it is directed or left at his last known address. The summons shall describe with reasonable certainty what is sought.
- `(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.
For under HR25, only the business is liable to "collect and remit" the NRST, and thus a business can be audited.
The individual consumer however, can only pay the NRST. The consumer is not authorized to collect the NRST.
Only a court order such a warrant or subpeona or discovery in civil actions, can result in pulling the average citizen into the mix. For that the tax cops need more than mere suspicion that you say is all is necessary.
Yes the tax law will be enforced by state tax authorities operating under express provisions in the Fair Tax legislation. Enforced through the lawful authority and due process which is expressly required under the NRST legislation in much more explicit form than exists under current Internal Revenue Code that the federal IRS operates under.
So should I accept the fact that you were mistaken (as happens to everyone on occasion) or should I continually bring it up as evidence that you are a "flip-flopper," a liar, etc.?
What should I do?
What ever you want to do as you always do anyway.
How can you say that? Joe Pimp buys a $5,000 watch with cocaine cash and has to pay a sales tax on it? He never had to before. Clue me in.Let me try and explain.
Individuals who owe tax are required to collect and remit it. You harp on that point, but that will not protect the individuals from being audited. The NRST does not protect the individual in any way. Records must be produced upon demand, no matter how lengthy your posts are. But I do give you an 'A' for presentation, but a 'D' for content.
"How can you say that? The first thing the bill does is make the consumer liable for the tax. And unless the consumer has an offical receipt, they are still liable. And all it takes to trigger an audit is for the government to think you might owe tax. There is NO PROTECTION for consumers in the entire bill. Individual consumers can be audited just like businesses."
Whoa there, AR!!! Are you really arguing for a continuation of the current system based on its greater respect for "consumer protection"? Are you saying that the current system is superior in regard to its respect for individual freedom and liberty?
You may want to rethink that position.... just a suggestion.
The internet is the solution? Come on now, get a grip on reality.
Shipments are not a taxable evemtWhat makes you think shipping to an individual isn't a taxable event? Isn't it a taxable service? And couldn't the item in the box have a taxable value?
Withdrawing cash is likewise not a taxable event and not monitored.Use ATMs much? Any service charge is payment a taxable service and will have the sales tax added on to it.
So when you said revenue neutrality was "required for Congress to enact such a law" you were either misspeaking, mistaken, or lying.
By the way revenue neutrality was required prior to 2004 before the PayGo rules and Budget Enforcement Act expired, and at the time the FairTax legislation was drafted during the Clinton years when the tax rate for the FairTax was established.
Seems to me a matter of timeframe here is at issue, not whether or not revenue neutrality is required by statute today.
Today, anything goes and the issue of revenue neutrality is moot except as the president may require such to get past his potential exercise of authority to veto a tax reform bill if he expects revenue neutrality to be a critical aspect.
Which apparently president Bush does:
http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/executive-order.shtml
|
So is revenue neutrality of a tax reform bill a matter of law? It would appear to be so within to the degree that an Executive Order of the president represents law, and his constitutional authority to veto a bill if a president finds lack of revenue neutrality sufficient cause for him to do so.
No, I am just so sick and tired of the lies posted here on a daily basis by NRSTers. NRST does not provide protection for the individuals. NRST does not relieve the individual from keeping records. The NRST police will be just as likely to go after individuals who they think are avoiding taxes as they are today. The advantages the NRSTers claim are either nonexistent and/or grossly exaggerated. There are lies, damn lies, and NRST posts. And I am not going to let the lies go unchallenged.
"Exactly, but then the record keeping for the individual has just become more tedious than it is currently. Every penny you spend has to be accounted for and every receipt must be maintained. This is actually much more difficult than just accounting for what your employer paid you. Plus every month you buy goods or services from non-registered retailers, you need to file and pay your tax. Then the real issue is, where is all the savings in compliance costs?"
AR, get a grip, man!! So now you are arguing for the current system based on ease of administration? Have you ever heard of DEDUCTIONS???
Unbelievable.
Individuals who owe tax are required to collect and remit it.
Customers tax are required to pay it. Not collect it.
Only persons acting in the capacity of a business or for a tax agency are required to collect and remit the tax in any circumstance:
`SEC. 103. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF TAX.
`(a) Liability for Collection and Remittance of the Tax- Except as provided otherwise by this section, any tax imposed by this subtitle shall be collected and remitted by the seller of taxable property or services (including financial intermediation services).
`(b) Tax to Be Remitted by Purchaser in Certain Circumstances-
- `(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of taxable property or services purchased outside of the United States and imported into the United States for use or consumption in the United States, the purchaser shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.
- `(2) CERTAIN WAGES OR SALARY- In the case of wages or salary paid by a taxable employer which are taxable services, the employer shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.
There is no situation where the purchaser is required to ever "collect" a tax under HR25.
Thus no situation where the purchaser is subject to audits under the provisions of:
`SEC. 508. SUMMONS, EXAMINATIONS, AUDITS, ETC.
- `(a) Summons- Persons are subject to administrative summons by the sales tax administering authority for records, documents, and testimony required by the sales tax administering authority to accurately determine liability for tax under this subtitle. A summons shall be served by the sales tax administering authority by an attested copy delivered in hand to the person to whom it is directed or left at his last known address. The summons shall describe with reasonable certainty what is sought.
- `(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.
Which is the only authority that can be used by the taxman short of a court order or warrant with sufficient cause for a court to believe a crime or civil offense may have occurred.
No, I am arguing against lies. Keeping track of income (which is reported to you) and a handful of receipts is much easier to account for than maintaining records for every penny you spend. Remember, if you don't have proper reciepts you are liable for sales tax on all your purchases. Where is all the freedom that they profess???
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.