4 > Discussions; Public Archive
Former IRS Revenue agent
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 10 1005 ---I know I am a PITA to you. You deserve kudos and thanks for engaging. Thank you.
Quoting myself:
𝐼 𝒶𝓂 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓊𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒸𝑒𝓇𝓉𝒶𝒾𝓃 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓎𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓅𝓊𝓉𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝓇𝑒𝓁𝒶𝓉𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝓌𝑒𝒷𝓈𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝒫𝓊𝒷𝓁𝒾𝒸 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒾𝒸𝑒 𝒜𝓃𝓃𝑜𝓊𝓃𝒸𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒾𝓃 𝒶𝓃 𝒶𝓉𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝒻𝓇𝑜𝓂 𝒸𝒶𝓊𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒽𝒶𝓇𝓂 𝓉𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂𝓈𝑒𝓁𝓋𝑒𝓈 𝒷𝓎 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝑜𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒽𝒶𝓋𝑒 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓉. 𝒯𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓈 𝒶 𝓁𝒶𝓊𝒹𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝒶𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓈𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓎𝑒𝓇𝓈.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I assume this is your intent in dealing with my annoying ass?
➽ Hey Dale. Would you like to give me more court cases to read and explain to you?
Save yourself some time dealing with my ignorant dumb ass. In view of your selective reading of what I have posted, I'll likely do the same with parts of some of your posts.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean don't post things that support your points, such as you did quoting from 435 U.S. 21.
Please understand that I have the character traits of being a pedantic asshole. I have often posted this in an attempt to get honest discussions from many I have interacted with: What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of X? X has often times been a word or phrase where I have attempted to get the meaning the other person intends. Great for attempting to remove equivocation from the discussion.
➽ 435 U.S. 21 (1978), you'd learn that it is about the definition of "wages" in the context of income tax withholding.
<Evil chuckle> Okay.
➽ "The income tax issue is not before us in this case. [...] the question whether the lunch reimbursements, [...], are or are not "wages" subject to withholding, within the meaning and requirements of §§ 3401-3403 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 3401-3403 (1970 ed. and Supp. V).
I am again assuming... You know that legal definitions in law mean toss the regular dictionary aside, it's definitions no longer matter.
[ I]t is well-settled law that when a statutory definition contradicts the everyday meaning of a word, the statutory language generally controls: judges should "construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman."
Tenn. Prot. & Advocacy Inc. v. Wells, 371 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2004).
§3402(f)(2) Allowance certificates
(A) On commencement of employment
On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 shall furnish the 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫 with a signed withholding allowance certificate relating to the withholding allowance claimed by the 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞, which shall in no event exceed the amount to which the employee is entitled.
Is this command to furnish a signed withholding allowance certificate subordinate to an 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 and 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫 actually being within the codified definitions provided in §3401?
§3401. Definitions
(d) 𝓔𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓻
For purposes of this chapter, the term "𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓻" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓮 of such person, except that—[...]
§3401. Definitions
(c) 𝓔𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓮
For purposes of this chapter, the term "𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓮" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee " also includes an officer of a corporation.
Please note that the statutory definition in §3401(c) only lists people employed by the government, its agencies, or its instrumentalities.
§3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "𝐰𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫r, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—[...]
Clearly, being paid 𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓻𝔂 𝔀𝓪𝓰𝓮𝓼 is subordinate to actually being paid by the 𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓻𝔂 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓻.
The above line of inquiry was based upon digging into one statute listed on the form W-4 Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice.
I still have the other statute to present.
--- End quote ---
10 1005
--- Quote from: 10 2131 ---Dale Eastman We both believe what we believe. I will leave it at that. No more questions. No more challenges. I wish you well.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 11 13:10 ---Feb 4 16:40 you wrote:
➽ You might get your jollies fighting an experienced IRS agent and supposing you somehow got the upper hand.
Getting my jollies somehow never comes to fruition when I do get 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓊𝓅𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒽𝒶𝓃𝒹 (to use your vernacular). Whether 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓊𝓅𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒽𝒶𝓃𝒹 is over professionals like yourself or laypeople like myself.
The only way I get feedback that I've stated truths is when I get ghosted by the cowards not able to say, 𝒴𝑜𝓊'𝓇𝑒 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉, 𝐼 𝒹𝒾𝒹𝓃'𝓉 𝓀𝓃𝑜𝓌 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉, or 𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓂𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝓂𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝓀.
Feb 4 17:58 you wrote:
➽ Dale Eastman I'm a retired experienced IRS agent. And I've dealt with people like you.
As I have dealt with people like you. People who can't or won't answer specific questions about their claims.
I highly doubt you've dealt with 𝓅𝑒𝑜𝓅𝓁𝑒 𝓁𝒾𝓀𝑒 𝓂𝑒. People who ask specific questions about the revenue laws people like you were (and are) paid to enforce.
Like; What statute makes me liable for taxes on my domestically earned compensation for labor?
To give credit where credit is due, I acknowledge that you did attempt to answer that question. However, you have failed to answer with specificity. My error in not asking the question with more specificity. I correct that now, learn from my error, reword, and move on.
What statute imposes liability for actually paying such a tax? No liability for said tax, no requirement to pay.
SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have access to Shepardizing tools. What I have found without those tools is 𝟣𝟢 𝒜𝓃𝒶𝓁𝓎𝓈𝑒𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒸𝒶𝓈𝑒 𝒷𝓎 𝒶𝓉𝓉𝑜𝓇𝓃𝑒𝓎𝓈 dated 2006 to 2018.
Not that the statement isn't a self-evident truth.
Your failure to state the law is your admission that the law that imposes liability for actually paying a tax on one's compensation for labor does not exist.
Feb 10 21:31 you wrote:
➽ Dale Eastman We both believe what we believe.
If this discussion has been about what I believe: I believe 𝐼𝒻 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝓁𝒶𝓌, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓊𝓃𝒹 𝒾𝓃 𝑜𝓊𝓇 𝒷𝑜𝑜𝓀𝓈; 𝒾𝒻 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝒷𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓊𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒, 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓁𝒶𝓌.
Feb 6 19:39 you wrote:
➽ I take all comers.
Your braggadocio amuses me.
Especially when you follow it with:
➽ No more questions. No more challenges.
Feb 6 20:22 you wrote:
➽ Dale Eastman And is this also "on the record" on your pitiful personal FB page?
Nope. It's on my 𝓅𝒾𝓉𝒾𝒻𝓊𝓁 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 website:
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1569.0
I'm sure this attached snapshot will entertain you.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 11 1959 ---I wish you well.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 13 0902 ---I thank you for the time you spent in dialog with me.
I am saddened by my failure to open your eyes...
But then, My actual target audience is all those who will read this discussion. Folks who I will never know put their eyes on this discussion.
An FYI tip for you and the other users of Fecalbook... I did not get a notification of your reply. To tag folks you are not FB friends with, use the @ sign, followed by no space, then the person you want to notify. And argh... This doesn't work all the time. Sometimes one must dig the ID out of the link to the person's avatar image. Mouse over on a non-phone web browser.
Given how this discussion went, I don't expect you to read from my website...
Nevertheless, This page and the page preceding (⇇ to back page) deal with the actual written words of the IRC and supporting regs thereunder.
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/OpenQuestionnaire.html
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
https://rumble.com/v29g6ay-prove-government-is-telling-the-truth-and-win-50000.html
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version