“life doesn’t come with any guarantees. we may lose this fight, but does that mean we shouldn’t stand up to tyranny?”
Look, if you were there first person to come up with this harebrained scheme, one might think, “hey why not try it?”
But, you’re not the first. You’re not even the hundredth. Hundreds of people have tried this. The answers to all your questions are in the Tax Court and district court records. It’s been addressed. Thousands of times. You just don’t have a clue about tax law and so you think you’re onto something clever because of something you read on the internet, but you’re not. All this is going to be for you is a very, very expensive learning experience. I’ve had a few of those, one was probably as expensive as this is going to be for you- and it made me a better person. Hmm, there wasn’t a chance of jail though, so YMMV.
You said: "huh. that definitely doesn’t apply to our return. so what’s going on here?"
Do all frivolous filers lack reading comprehension or what? What part of "(44) ... OR similar arguments described as frivolous in ...Rev Rul 2004-1 C.B. 625"
-From the aforementioned Rev Rul 2004-1 C.B.-
Examples of frivolous or groundless issues include, but are not limited to:
(7) claims that wages or personal service income are not “income,” are “nontaxable receipts,” or “are a nontaxable exchange for labor;”
(9) other claims the courts have characterized as frivolous or groundless.
#7 and #9 covers your position that your wages from an employer are not taxable. The court has specifically addressed filing 4852 to zero out your taxable wages. The people who do this have been fined up to $25,000.
You said: "item #ar it IS NOT a “position” and DOES NOT appear anywhere on notice 2010-33."
Doesn't matter that they didn't specifically list every single tiny little thing that y'all could come up with to avoid paying your taxes. Did you bother to read the whole thing?
"(46) Any position described as frivolous in any revenue ruling or other published guidance in existence when the return adopting the position is filed with or the specified submission adopting the position is submitted to the Service.
Returns or submissions that contain positions not listed above, which on their face have no basis for validity in existing law, or which have been deemed frivolous in a published opinion of the United States Tax Court or other court of competent jurisdiction, may be determined to reflect a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws and thereby subject to the $5,000 penalty."
Read my latest post - the US Tax Court has specifically addressed your schemes and have found them wanting.
are you really that dense or are you just pretending we didn’t already have this conversation?
3401(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."
I am neither an officer, employee nor elected official of the "United States", a "State", or any political subdivision thereof, or DC, or any agency of any of these. I am also not an officer of a "corporation". Nor am I in the general class of any of the above.
"[T]he verb "includes" imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition."
~Helvering v Morgan's Inc, 293 U.S. 121, 126 fn. 1 (1934)
Because the term "employee" is specifically defined in the code it does not mean the same as the common usage of the word. Otherwise, there would be no point in specifically defining it.
In Latham, the judge said that the reading of 3401(c) using the word “includes” to exclude others was “a preposterous reading of the statute.” Latham’s felony conviction for fraudulently filing out forms w-4 was upheld.
You didn’t know what a citation for Tax Court cases looked like. Maybe you should start studying the basics of tax law before trying to prove anything.
you do understand it would be ridiculous if the average person had to have a law degree just to follow the law.
but you're counting on that aren't you? you benefit directly from the ignorance of the masses.
that's why you're so keen to frighten people away from the truth. if the truth were on their side they wouldn't need to resort to lying and obfuscation*. it would be clear and plain for all to see.
the fact that there is widespread confusion about what the law says and how it should be correctly applied is all the evidence the average person needs to understand they are being scammed.
*edit to add fear. lots and lots of fear.
👉if the law said what they want you to think it does they wouldn't need all the lies, obfuscations and FEAR to get you to comply👈
Do you fix your own car? Or do you hire a mechanic to fix it?
The law is complex. Call every attorney in the State of Texas and I will bet you can’t get a single one to represent you in Tax Court or District Court with this argument. Why? Because it’s wrong. You’re wrong. You’re interpreting the law wrong and you have taken bad advice from the Internet.
I was a diesel mechanic in the army. So, yes, I have lots of experience working on my own vehicles.
But no one is suggesting that everyone must buy and/or use a car they don’t know how to work on. Avoiding the complexities of owning and working on a vehicle is an option. Avoiding the law is not.
Yes, the law is complex, but it shouldn’t be. We the people are demanding it be simple to understand and follow. The fact that it isn’t is proof positive that the “experts” are using it against us.
And once again you trot out that appeal to authority.
Trust the experts, y’all. The law is too hard and we’re too stupid to be able to figure it out ourselves.
Tax lawyers and accountants are like the priests of the dark ages. They’re all just agents smith of the matrix.
Also, I noticed you didn’t bother to address the 800-pound gorilla of the blatant fraud I revealed in my post. Or is that just, “bad advice from the internet?”
Just keep repeating, “you’re wrong!” while covering your eyes and ears to the truth and see how that works out for you.
Okay, so you have a bad tooth. Do you hire a dentist or do you pull it yourself?
Civilization is complicated, but better than the alternative.
Oh and don’t worry. We’re going to have fun in Tax Court. They’ve already addressed all that, and I will publish a review of the cases showing where people have had the exact same arguments you have (because they read the same website and book you did), what the court said, and the verdict of the trials.
Just because you think things should be different doesn’t make it so. What you’re doing isn’t going to change anything. It hasn’t yet and many, many people have tried it. Like I said, you are not the first. And to boot, losing money in this game to the government does nothing for you or anyone else.
Have you signed up for Tax Court yet? That’s probably the only way you won’t pay so much. They might waive the penalties for you.
anyone else get the sense the troll is desperate for you to not look behind the curtain?
“life doesn’t come with any guarantees. we may lose this fight, but does that mean we shouldn’t stand up to tyranny?”
Look, if you were there first person to come up with this harebrained scheme, one might think, “hey why not try it?”
But, you’re not the first. You’re not even the hundredth. Hundreds of people have tried this. The answers to all your questions are in the Tax Court and district court records. It’s been addressed. Thousands of times. You just don’t have a clue about tax law and so you think you’re onto something clever because of something you read on the internet, but you’re not. All this is going to be for you is a very, very expensive learning experience. I’ve had a few of those, one was probably as expensive as this is going to be for you- and it made me a better person. Hmm, there wasn’t a chance of jail though, so YMMV.
You said: "huh. that definitely doesn’t apply to our return. so what’s going on here?"
Do all frivolous filers lack reading comprehension or what? What part of "(44) ... OR similar arguments described as frivolous in ...Rev Rul 2004-1 C.B. 625"
-From the aforementioned Rev Rul 2004-1 C.B.-
Examples of frivolous or groundless issues include, but are not limited to:
(7) claims that wages or personal service income are not “income,” are “nontaxable receipts,” or “are a nontaxable exchange for labor;”
(9) other claims the courts have characterized as frivolous or groundless.
#7 and #9 covers your position that your wages from an employer are not taxable. The court has specifically addressed filing 4852 to zero out your taxable wages. The people who do this have been fined up to $25,000.
You said: "item #ar it IS NOT a “position” and DOES NOT appear anywhere on notice 2010-33."
Doesn't matter that they didn't specifically list every single tiny little thing that y'all could come up with to avoid paying your taxes. Did you bother to read the whole thing?
"(46) Any position described as frivolous in any revenue ruling or other published guidance in existence when the return adopting the position is filed with or the specified submission adopting the position is submitted to the Service.
Returns or submissions that contain positions not listed above, which on their face have no basis for validity in existing law, or which have been deemed frivolous in a published opinion of the United States Tax Court or other court of competent jurisdiction, may be determined to reflect a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws and thereby subject to the $5,000 penalty."
Read my latest post - the US Tax Court has specifically addressed your schemes and have found them wanting.
“#7 and #9 covers your position that your wages from an employer are not taxable.”
you completely mischaracterize my position. I never said “wages from an employer are not taxable.”
what I said was, i’m not an “employee” therefore I did not receive “wages.”
wrong as usual.
What were you? A flying monkey? Lol did you have a 401k plan? Or are you just an employee for some sections of the IRC?
are you really that dense or are you just pretending we didn’t already have this conversation?
3401(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."
I am neither an officer, employee nor elected official of the "United States", a "State", or any political subdivision thereof, or DC, or any agency of any of these. I am also not an officer of a "corporation". Nor am I in the general class of any of the above.
"[T]he verb "includes" imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition."
~Helvering v Morgan's Inc, 293 U.S. 121, 126 fn. 1 (1934)
Because the term "employee" is specifically defined in the code it does not mean the same as the common usage of the word. Otherwise, there would be no point in specifically defining it.
But you didn’t answer my question. Did you have a 401(k) plan?
In Latham, the judge said that the reading of 3401(c) using the word “includes” to exclude others was “a preposterous reading of the statute.” Latham’s felony conviction for fraudulently filing out forms w-4 was upheld.
You didn’t know what a citation for Tax Court cases looked like. Maybe you should start studying the basics of tax law before trying to prove anything.
you do understand it would be ridiculous if the average person had to have a law degree just to follow the law.
but you're counting on that aren't you? you benefit directly from the ignorance of the masses.
that's why you're so keen to frighten people away from the truth. if the truth were on their side they wouldn't need to resort to lying and obfuscation*. it would be clear and plain for all to see.
the fact that there is widespread confusion about what the law says and how it should be correctly applied is all the evidence the average person needs to understand they are being scammed.
*edit to add fear. lots and lots of fear.
👉if the law said what they want you to think it does they wouldn't need all the lies, obfuscations and FEAR to get you to comply👈
Do you fix your own car? Or do you hire a mechanic to fix it?
The law is complex. Call every attorney in the State of Texas and I will bet you can’t get a single one to represent you in Tax Court or District Court with this argument. Why? Because it’s wrong. You’re wrong. You’re interpreting the law wrong and you have taken bad advice from the Internet.
I was a diesel mechanic in the army. So, yes, I have lots of experience working on my own vehicles.
But no one is suggesting that everyone must buy and/or use a car they don’t know how to work on. Avoiding the complexities of owning and working on a vehicle is an option. Avoiding the law is not.
Yes, the law is complex, but it shouldn’t be. We the people are demanding it be simple to understand and follow. The fact that it isn’t is proof positive that the “experts” are using it against us.
And once again you trot out that appeal to authority.
Trust the experts, y’all. The law is too hard and we’re too stupid to be able to figure it out ourselves.
Tax lawyers and accountants are like the priests of the dark ages. They’re all just agents smith of the matrix.
Also, I noticed you didn’t bother to address the 800-pound gorilla of the blatant fraud I revealed in my post. Or is that just, “bad advice from the internet?”
Just keep repeating, “you’re wrong!” while covering your eyes and ears to the truth and see how that works out for you.
Okay, so you have a bad tooth. Do you hire a dentist or do you pull it yourself?
Civilization is complicated, but better than the alternative.
Oh and don’t worry. We’re going to have fun in Tax Court. They’ve already addressed all that, and I will publish a review of the cases showing where people have had the exact same arguments you have (because they read the same website and book you did), what the court said, and the verdict of the trials.
Just because you think things should be different doesn’t make it so. What you’re doing isn’t going to change anything. It hasn’t yet and many, many people have tried it. Like I said, you are not the first. And to boot, losing money in this game to the government does nothing for you or anyone else.
Have you signed up for Tax Court yet? That’s probably the only way you won’t pay so much. They might waive the penalties for you.
Still ignoring the blatant fraud and appealing to authority. 🥱
Lol appeal to authority is only a fallacy outside of law.
I believe that this falls in the category of FAFO.