| LEGAL
DISCLAIMER I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet. I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet. I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE. Go look it up for yourself. |
| Reply
posted: http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/famspear2.html DRE - 4/22/06 - 18:18 CDT. No reply from Mr. Famspear, as of 4/29/06 - 18:24 CDT. In other posts, Mr. Famspear has defended the conventional belief as the IRS would have others believe. That makes Mr. Famspear a "defacto" IRS Agent. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS [or its defacto agents]. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932. Silence can only be equated with fraud. Are you a fraud Mr. Famspear? http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/famspear2.html DRE - 4/29/06 - 18:24 CDT. You are suggesting, then, that User:Famspear has "a legal or moral duty to speak"? Since you have claimed no authority to impose on Famspear any legal duty, you must be referring to a moral duty. When does one have a moral duty to speak? To prevent an immoral act. Hence, Famspear only has a moral duty to speak if so doing would prevent an immoral act - but he has been asked by you to articulate his opposition to your position. Hence, if Famspear is a fraud, it must be because his failure to speak against your position (thus far) is a failure to speak against an immoral act. So, do you concede that your act of taking the position that income taxes need not be paid is an immoral act? By the way, I saw the question you asked, "is labor property" - it is too simplistic to be answered with a "yes" or "no". As you may know, labor can have multiple meanings, as can property. Do you mean "labor" as in the process of bearing a child? Do you mean "property" as in real estate? I'm quite certain that the birth process is not real estate. Here are two serious questions for you: is it permissible for the state in which you live to amend its constitution so as to permit the state to establish a religion, and to enforce that amendment by enacting a law requiring you to cease the religious practices in which you engage, and instead take up a different religion sanctioned by the state? Is it permissible for the state in which you live to amend its constitution to provide that persons convicted of evading taxes in that state shall be executed by torture? BDAbramson T 23:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Mr. Abramson, It is interesting that you chose to speak for Mr. Famspear.... The Mr. Famspear who threatened by innuendo to embarrass me about the tax laws. The same Mr. Famspear who is now nowhere to be found. No matter. If you want to speak for Mr. Famspear, that is perfectly acceptable to me. You are a lawyer, and I'm still just a dumb ex-truck driver. You have chosen to engage. Fine. "I saw the question you asked, "is labor property" - it is too simplistic to be answered with a "yes" or "no". As you may know, labor can have multiple meanings, as can property. Do you mean "labor" as in the process of bearing a child? Do you mean "property" as in real estate? I'm quite certain that the birth process is not real estate." Your flippant answer speaks volumes about you. Nevertheless, we can play your lawyer games.
In other words, Labor that one would be compensated for. [1] Is labor property? |