Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
71
Discussions; Public Archive / Capitalism BM & ST
« Last post by Dale Eastman on June 17, 2023, 06:42:12 PM »
Quote from: 17 June 12:45
Capitalism is basically a bully with monopoly on violence claiming something as his property and having papers to prove it.
Quote from: 17 June 13:00
Capitalism is inherently exploitive. Capitol = chattel.
Quote from: 17 June 18:34
Capitalism is inherently exploitive. Capitol = chattel.

Hi B... Pedantic Asshole Dale here.

Nebulously defined terms have no place in serious discussions. I read your words as an invite to a serious discussion about..."Capitalism".
Quote from: 17 June 18:35
okay
Quote from: 17 June 18:49
I'm pretty sure I stuck the hook up the worm's butt.
Quote from: 17 June 19:07
Dale Eastman capitalism has nothing to do with property ownership or free trade does it? It has more in common with a hook up a worm's butt.
Quote from: 17 June 19:41
You and I do NOT have an agreement on what "capitalism" is...
Other than a 10 character word.

The relationship of X to Y or to Z can not be examined unless X is rigidly defined.

My not understanding exactly what 𝓨𝓞𝓤 mean when 𝓨𝓞𝓤 use the word-term "𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞" is severely limits communication and mutual understanding.
73
Discussions; Public Archive / WO
« Last post by Dale Eastman on June 03, 2023, 10:35:58 AM »
Quote from: The original post
3 Tips if You Need Help with IRS Back Taxes
Quote from: 2 June 07:39
You can negotiate your own payment plan based on your expenses and what you can afford to pay. You don’t need anthem, optima, freedom or any of them companies to charge you a fee to work out a payment plan with IRS.
Quote from: 2 June 19:27
Ask the IRS: "What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?"
Quote from: 3 June 07:16
Dale Eastman So you are Sovereign Citizen type of fellow, cool, good luck with that.
Quote from: 3 June 11:35
Mr. O.
Yes. I accept your implied invite to a discussion.

I snooped your wall. I wanted to make sure you weren't a certain weed smoking country musician.

In doing so, I found out you know, or you should know, that a black wire will knock your dick into your watch pocket. So I am going to ask you a construction related segue question: Do you start a task assuming those red, blue, or black wires are not hot?

You look old enough to know that to ass-u-me is to make an ass outa you and me.

I am curious. Why would you assume I am Sovereign Citizen?

I refuse to make certain assumptions... So I ask for clarification. What, exactly, do 𝓨𝓞𝓤 mean when 𝓨𝓞𝓤 call me a "Sovereign Citizen"?

If fact, I often attempt to drill down to get at the minutia. So I follow-up with this question: What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of a "Sovereign Citizen"?

I am also curious, why did you basically ignore the question? Did I word it in a way that you couldn't understand? If so, I apologize. Sorry. How can I help you understand the purpose of the question?
74
Discussions; Public Archive / WK
« Last post by Dale Eastman on June 02, 2023, 03:15:06 PM »
Quote from: 30 Jan 15:24
SCOTUS has said:
   In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

 SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

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)

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?
Quote from: 31 May 21:35
Dale Eastman I wouldn't recommend you using that argument in tax court
Quote from:
I wouldn't recommend you using that argument in tax court

I'm impressed that you even know tax court exists.

Didja know TC is not an article 3 court? Didja know it originally was an administrative hearing board? Didja know TC is for taxpayers?

Did UW - Milwaukee teach you to act on assumptions instead of digging for facts?

Why would you assume that I would even step foot into tax court? Why would you assume that I am within the 26 USC 7701(a)(14) statutory definition?

It's NOT an argument... It's a question. If you can't answer it, why did you even bother to reply?

Here's that question you ignored:

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

Spit the bait out and just continue your lazy way down stream.
75
Discussions; Public Archive / JA
« Last post by Dale Eastman on May 27, 2023, 03:15:36 PM »
Quote from: 27 May 08:33
Being utterly ineffective, I don't see voting as violence any more than male masturbation is abortion. There's a missing connection to That Which Actually Initiates Change.

It can be done with good or ill intent, nobody really cares to know the details about who does it or how, and it has very little, if any, real effect. It really is a masturbatory exercise, in so many ways.

I understand the position that it offers consent to a broken system, though it's obviously not as damaging as paying taxes, so ... 🤷‍♀️

Why applaud or condemn an action that means so little?
Quote from: 27 May 16:42
I don't see voting as violence any more than[...]

While the context and words of your post indicate to me that you and I are on the same liberty minded side...
(Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.)

I most vehemently object to your (in my opinion) failure to fully understand the "broken system."

Hello. I'm Dale. I'm a pedantic asshole.

I have spent a lot of time thinking about and studying the "broken system". I spent time thinking about what, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of this "broken system"?

What is this broken system? There's two of them... Three if you add in the conditioned imbecility of the voters.

Voting is a broken system. Voting is a sub-system of the other broken system- the government.

If you understand the the moment a cop reaches for and flips the switch to "light-up" a motorist over, the cop has initiated violence against that motorist.

Do you understand this?

Please make sure you tag me so I know you've answered.
"@dale.eastman.75"

though it's obviously not as damaging as paying taxes,

Taxes taken out of your compensation for labor payroll is done because you were tricked into suborning perjury and volunteered to have compensation withheld.
76
Misc. / JM
« Last post by Dale Eastman on May 13, 2023, 03:27:44 PM »
Abridged for clarity
Quote from: 30 April 23:12
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?
Quote from: 13 May 11:03
Title 26 section 1 and 61
Quote from:  13 May 16:26
I am VERY SPECIFIC about the words I use.

Are you "ignorant" or are you "dishonest"?
My snarky question is not valid until I learn if you are one of "them".
So, for the moment I will assume you are not one of "them".
Thus I assume you are simply nescient. (not having knowledge about something: a nescient interpretation of the facts).
Nescient simply means "You don't know." Ignorant means you choose to NOT know.
Nescient also means, you don't know what you don't know.
Or in other words, you don't know what I know is a fact... Like what the other words of tax law actually are... And the effect of those other law's words have on §§ 1 and 61.

(You get credit for knowing of Section 1 and Section 61.)

Now the KEY word you missed is the word "LIABLE". If I am not "liable" for a tax on an item, how would I be required to pay said tax? How would I be required to pay a tax on my compensation for labor if I am "NOT LIABLE" for that tax?

I am going  to copy-paste my abridged quote of section 1. It is now your duty to insure my abridgement did not omit something of importance. Not pointing out such omission of something important is your agreement that I omitted nothing important.

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
[table omitted]

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
[table omitted]

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
[table omitted]

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
[table omitted]

(e) Estates and trusts
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every estate, and
(2) every trust,
taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
[table omitted]

Where in section 1 is a liability imposed on a person to pay one of those 5 classes of tax?

You also errantly mentioned § 61

     Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
    Subtitle A - Income Taxes
    CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
    Subchapter B - Computation of Taxable Income
    PART I - DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE INCOME, ETC.
    §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;
    (8 ) Annuities;
    (9) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
    (10) Pensions;
    (11) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
    (12) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
    (13) Income in respect of a decedent; and
    (14) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Now for the edification of yourself an any other reading this dialog... Here's what a law imposing a liability looks like:
Sec. 5005. Persons liable for tax
(a) General
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

The taxes imposed in subtitle a follow the same form. There are liability statutes that clearly define who is made liable for § 1 taxes.

I have found and read with my own eyes, the law that makes the following classes of person liable for the income tax imposed in section 1 "by clear and unequivocal language".

    Estate or trust fiduciary.
    Partner in a partnership.
    Nonresident alien individual.
    Alien individual resident in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands.
    Chapter 3 withholding agent.
    Chapter 4 withholding agent.

I am none of the above. Most people are none of the above as well.

The preceding classes of person are specifically pointed out as being required to pay (made liable for) the income tax imposed in section 1. This liability is imposed in language that is just as clear and unequivocal as the distilled spirits tax liability you were shown previously. This liability is not implied. There is no doubt and there is no question that those classes of person are liable for the section 1 income tax.


77
Misc. / Re: TG
« Last post by Dale Eastman on May 07, 2023, 09:26:28 AM »
Quote from: 7 may 09:23
Dale Eastman I don’t care. You aren’t making any sense. I’m not reading your failed attempts to persuade. Unhinged. I hope that’s not your real name. Good luck crossing the street as I assume that’s a tough one for you as well.
Quote from: 7 may 10:27
You aren’t making any sense.

As Upton Sinclair has been quoted: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

I’m not reading your failed attempts to persuade.

Translation: He refuses to answer the question about the law:
𝕎𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕝𝕒𝕨 𝕞𝕒𝕜𝕖𝕤 𝕞𝕖 𝕃𝕀𝔸𝔹𝕃𝔼 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕒 𝕥𝕒𝕩 𝕠𝕟 𝕞𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕝𝕒𝕓𝕠𝕣?

I’m not reading your failed attempts to persuade.

Well of course my attempt to persuade has failed. You refuse to read the words of tax laws I am willing to present to educate you.

I don’t care.

You cared enough to make comments on my first post. Now you don't care.

I'm speculating your lawyer ego won't let you accept that a non-lawyer layperson just might know more about tax law than you do.

Your insults do not require me to address them. They only show YOU in the light of YOUR personality.
Which <sotto voce> was my reason for baiting the hook in the first place.

I hope that’s not your real name.

That implies to me that you care about something about my name. Ya just contradicted your claim that you don't care.

FYI, the IRS knows who I am ever since I told the flunkie on the phone that I would be discussing my reason for not filing that year's 1040 "at my willful failure to file trial."

Since it appears to me that you are going to ghost me...

Synaptic Sparks
An Open Questionnaire
To Find The Truth

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.

However, these people are still lawyers. So there's the grains of truth in all those lawyer jokes.

Continues here:
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/OpenQuestionnaire.html
78
Misc. / Re: TG
« Last post by Dale Eastman on May 07, 2023, 08:09:27 AM »
Quote from: 7 May 06:27
Dale Eastman it’s not even willful non filing. That’s a misdemeanor. You’d be a tax evasion felon. If you want a more detailed explanation, my hourly rate is $500 an hour. I hope you don’t convince anyone else to be foolish and temp fate. If you want to get yourself locked up, idc
Quote from: 7 May 09:05
You’d be a tax evasion felon. If you want a more detailed explanation, my hourly rate is $500 an hour.

Why would I want to pay you $500 an hour to lie to me?

I have FRE#602 personal first hand knowledge of what the pertinent tax laws say.

ℂ𝕒𝕟 𝕀 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕞𝕚𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕞𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕖𝕧𝕒𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒 𝕥𝕒𝕩 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕀 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 ℕ𝕆𝕋 𝕓𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕞𝕒𝕕𝕖 𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕗𝕠𝕣?

I took the time to do special FB text so you can not miss the question.

I'll post this a third time...
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)

And I will ask the same question, shortened, that you can not or will not answer:

𝕎𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕝𝕒𝕨 𝕞𝕒𝕜𝕖𝕤 𝕞𝕖 𝕃𝕀𝔸𝔹𝕃𝔼 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕒 𝕥𝕒𝕩 𝕠𝕟 𝕞𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕝𝕒𝕓𝕠𝕣?

My last post I did show you what a liability statute looks like.

my hourly rate is $500 an hour.

Translation: He knows he will spend a boatload of time making naked assertions that are not in accordance with what the law says, and that pedantic asshole Eastman will not let such bullshit claims stand unchallenged.

As a layperson, I have no reason to pay for the Shepardizing Tools you lawyers use. You are aware, or you should be aware, that I fella that knows what Shepardizing and FRE#602 is, is not your usual ignarnt (sic) fella.

79
Misc. / Re: TG
« Last post by Dale Eastman on May 06, 2023, 10:49:49 AM »
Quote from: 6 May 22:15
Dale Eastman that one’s easy, buddy. IRC 6012.

Okay...

Sec. 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual -

Please note that 6012 does NOT create a liability on a private Citizen for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor.

As a matter of deliberate habit, I review my discussions to check that certain points do not get ignored deliberately or inadvertently.

This quote of your words is your presentment of your assumption that I have a "misunderstanding"
The courts would think that not paying your taxes based on your “misunderstanding” of what they say is the law is a crime.

I specifically asked you: Can I correctly assume and opine that you are characterizing my "position" as willfully misunderstanding the tax law? I have now asked it a second time.

I'm repeating this statement of mine because you have ignored or missed the challenge to your assumption:
You have NOT proven a misunderstanding on my part.

I will give credit where it is due. You appear to intend to educate me on my (assumed by you) lack of factual and actual knowledge of what the tax statutes and regulations thereunder actually demand. Your concern that I not lead others down an incorrect path is laudable.

Getting back to sec 6012. This section does create a duty to file. A duty to file does NOT create a liability. So my "willful failure to file" would trigger one of two penalty statutes. Sect 7203 is the misdemeanor statute. 7201 is the felony statute. 7201 is closer to your statement:
Dale Eastman tax evasion. Have a nice day, buddy.

26 U.S. Code § 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

You do understand that this penalty statute applies to each and every tax imposed in Title 26?

I was VERY SPECIFIC in my wording of my original question:
What law makes me LIABLE?

I present for the edification of everyone reading this exchange, for comparison, a statute that creates a liability for a specific tax in Title 26:

 26 U.S. Code § 5005 - Persons liable for tax
(a) General
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

And my original question:
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?



80
Misc. / TG
« Last post by Dale Eastman on May 05, 2023, 01:58:36 PM »
Quote from: 19 April 12:49
SCOTUS has said:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

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)

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

Since I'm getting spammed by ignorant or dishonest tax preparers, I'm returning the favor by asking this question. Please note all the failures and refusals to answer this very specific question about tax law.
Quote from: 4 May 18:28
Dale Eastman Sounds like this post is going to be evidence in a future legal case but ok
Quote from: 4 May 18:29
Dale Eastman it’s ok for you to believe this and act on it if you like the idea of going to jail. If not. Be smarter.
Quote from: 4 May 21:54
➽ "it’s ok for you to believe this and act on it if you like the idea of going to jail. If not. Be smarter."

Followed by a link to a page with these words:

➽ "This page is for this world's least stealthy criminals, who post about their unlegal activities on s"

Mr. G, I find posts like yours to be interesting. You make assumptions without knowledge, spew a claim without evidence. In a word, what you posted is bullshit... "But ok"

I then do what I always do when some... uh... person spews "ignorance" or if I'm being nice, nescience". I ask questions about such BS claims.

What criminal charge do you believe I would be jailed for?
Quote from: 5 May 06:37
Dale Eastman tax evasion. Have a nice day, buddy.
Quote from: 5 May 12:00
What is the law? Can you cite the statute where this law is?
Quote from: 5 Mau 12:01
Dale Eastman just trying to help you. If you don’t want to heed my advice you don’t have to. Idc. Just don’t want you leading innocent fools in the wrong direction. Take care and good luck with your intelligence level struggles
Quote from: 5 May 12:04
Dale Eastman you know what man… I’ll answer your question a bit more fully. The us tax code does not define income. It does define gross income as “all income from whatever source derived” we have a courts system in this country. Courts decide who goes to jail and what the laws say. The courts would think that not paying your taxes based on your “misunderstanding” of what they say is the law is a crime. If you read those decisions you cited you will see that they are dealing with very specific scenarios. Find me a case from a competent court that says wages aren’t income and I’ll bother talking to you further. Kind of seems like you like being a criminal tho
Quote from: 5 May 13:15
Idc. Just don’t want you leading innocent fools in the wrong direction.

That Sir, is a most laudable sentiment. I applaud that you think that.

So this brings us directly to the reason for this discussion and the concepts that will follow. I think a very similar thing. I do care. I don't want innocent fools robbed of their compensation for labor. The are being robbed because the IRS LIES. The IRS lies of omission are the most notable. (If you've the balls to learn from an ignarnt layperson, I will be presenting my FRE#602 personal first hand knowledge of this point.)

Dale Eastman you know what man…

No Sir, I do not. You've just made two errors of assumption. You assumed and presented as fact that I know some"thing". This error is based on your other assumption. You assumed I could read your mind.
I am a pedantic asshole. I own it. I do not, and will not, assume a person I am conversing with even knows the definitions of the words they use. In fact, by asking folks for the definition of a term or word THEY use so that I can be sure I understand their point, I get ghosted.

The us tax code does not define income.

Correct.

It does define gross income as “all income from whatever source derived”

Correct and misleading.

Courts decide who goes to jail and what the laws say.

You appear to have missed this the first time I presented it...
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)

The courts would think that not paying your taxes based on your “misunderstanding” of what they say is the law is a crime.

You have NOT proven a misunderstanding on my part. And I am well aware of the Cheek decision.

Cheek v. United States - 498 U.S. 192, 111 S. Ct. 604 (1991) Rule:
Willfulness, as construed in criminal tax cases, requires the government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that he knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty. If the government proves actual knowledge of the legal duty, the prosecution, without more, has satisfied the knowledge component of the willfulness but misunderstanding may remain.

Can I correctly assume and opine that you are characterizing my "position" as willfully misunderstanding the tax law?

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter A - Crimes
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Who is the person required? Show me the law.
Quote from: 5 May 14:02
Dale Eastman that one’s easy, buddy. IRC 6012. it’s kind of a matter of common sense. Believe in your flavor of pedantry… sure. But if you choose to act as if you believe and others follow you, you will end up in jail. If you value your freedom. Pay your taxes. The end.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »