Author Topic: JK  (Read 549 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,980
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
JK
« on: April 05, 2023, 12:00:16 PM »
In reply to all the tax terrorism season spam I have been posting this reply...

Quote from: 4 April 15:02
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?

www.synapticsparks.info/t
Quote from: 5 April 11:31
Go make that argument and let us know the outcome! 🤣😂🤣😂
Quote from: 5 April 12:13
It's not an argument. It's a question.

If you can't answer this VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION, they why did you even bother to reply?

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: 5 April 12:36
I did reply lightening bug! Try to make that argument / question / whatever you want to call it that the tax law isn't clear and blah blah blah! See if you don't end up in jail! Why did you bother to look it up?! Lightening bug!
Quote
I did reply lightening bug!

There's a big difference between a reply in communication and an answer to a specific question. You did NOT answer the question.

I did reply lightening bug!

What, specifically, do you mean when you call me "lightening bug"? Was this intended as an insult? If yes, was this intended to anger me to make me not ask questions about your disingenuous post?

Try to make that argument / question / whatever you want to call it that the tax law isn't clear and blah blah blah!

You have just claimed that I implied that the tax law isn't clear. You have just shown me that you don't know how to read. You attempted to connect two dots that do not connect. This is called "Conflation".

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Conflation:
𝒞𝑜𝓃𝒻𝓁𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝑔𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝓌𝑜 𝑜𝓇 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝑒 𝓈𝑒𝓉𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝒾𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝓉𝑒𝓍𝓉𝓈, 𝒾𝒹𝑒𝒶𝓈 𝑜𝓇 𝑜𝓅𝒾𝓃𝒾𝑜𝓃𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝑜𝓃𝑒, 𝑜𝒻𝓉𝑒𝓃 𝒾𝓃 𝑒𝓇𝓇𝑜𝓇. 𝒞𝑜𝓃𝒻𝓁𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝒾𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝒶𝓈 𝒻𝓊𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑜𝓇 𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓃𝑔, 𝒷𝓊𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝑜𝒻𝓉𝑒𝓃 𝓂𝒾𝓈𝓊𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓇𝓈𝓉𝑜𝑜𝒹 𝒶𝓈 ‘𝒷𝑒𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑒𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓁 𝓉𝑜’ - 𝓉𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝓌𝑜 𝓈𝒾𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒶𝓇 𝒷𝓊𝓉 𝒹𝒾𝓈𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉𝓈 𝒶𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓈𝒶𝓂𝑒. 𝑀𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓂 𝒲𝑒𝒷𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝓈𝓊𝑔𝑔𝑒𝓈𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒽𝒶𝓅𝓅𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝓇𝑒𝓁𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁𝓎 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓁𝓎, 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒹𝒾𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓇𝓎 𝒾𝓃 𝟣𝟫𝟩𝟥.

How much time have you actually spent reading the tax law statutes in Title 26 of the USC (United States Code)?

I won't assume that you've heard this idiom before, so I will plainly ask, are you aware of the saying, "𝐼𝑔𝓃𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝓌 𝒾𝓈 𝓃𝑜 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝓊𝓈𝑒"?

See if you don't end up in jail!

What, specifically, is your intent and purpose to make this comment?

What you wrote is no different than if you said, "Don't pay the mafia their protection racket demands and see if you don't end up with broken knee caps.

Back in 2006-2007 I told an IRS flunkie on the phone (Back when the IRS made phone calls and left a message on the answering machine that I made the return call) that I would not be filing that previous year's Form 1040, and I'd be happy to discuss that in my willful failure to file trial.

Why did you bother to look it up?

I am assuming, because you're not that good of a communicator, that by the word "it" you mean the tax laws and SCOTUS cases. I will answer what I assume you meant as your question at face value.

I looked up the tax statutes and the defining SCOTUS cases because I got wind of what was then a rumor: The tax laws don't say what you think they say. So I checked the claim for validity.

Lightening bug!

I'll own it. I bug folks by illuminating their delusions.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2023, 01:10:04 PM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters