User talk:Stare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome Stare!
Hello, Stare, I'm Drini and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date, and use edit summaries whenever you change a page. If you have any questions, need help or assistance, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or contact me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Enjoy Wikipedia!! |
-- (☺drini♫|☎) 18:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Income tax in the United States
Thank you. I created the original Tax protester article, and have been in a running battle with them ever since. "The Sixteenth Amendment doesn't exist!" "'Income' is limited to fruits and vegetables!" "The U.S. Constitution only applies in Guam and Micronesia!" Anwyay, again, thank you. BD2412 T 21:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The reason I believe the citations to IRC section 6020 to be appropriate on the page in question because in the history page a member said they removed the comments because they weren't sourced. I sourced them. Fortunately, their is rule of law that require a valid delegation from the Secretary or must be the Secretary of state as stated in section 6020, whether you want to believe that or not, that is the applicable law to cite for my additions. None of my verbiage has betrays my frustration, as you put it. They are all legally sound. If you don't believe it then challenge it. I have been very conscious in producing challening laws and supreme court cases to back up my points. Regardless, if anyone, including what some legal scholars may think is "legally firvolous tax protestor rhetoric", that is merely their way of saying "I have nothing to back up what I'm saying". Quote the specific part of the Craig case that says the IRS Revenue Agent did have a valid delegation under the statues and reg cited. I saw nothing on it. The ruling must state what the delegation order said and by what statute or it's null and void. As you see, removing your cases was entirely appropriate because you didn't quite see the point. Just posting a regulation that says IRS agents have authority when they have word from the Secretary of stated doesn't say that the IRS Revenue agents who approach people do have authority. They must produce the delegation from the Secretary of State and have a Pocket Commission showing they have authority, which only ATF Officers have, not Revenue Officers. That is the point that everyone needs to know. So, you see what you posted was redundant, since I already mentioned that they do have authority when authorized and by what means. Be aware that you don't have to be a tax lawyer or a CPA in order to understand the law and how it is applied. All you need are eyes to read. If you are either of these, be aware you are being watched by people who are going to read the laws, so don't try any trickery.--bb69 17:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)bb69 16:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)BB69
[edit] Redundancy happens
There will frequently be overlap/redundancy between articles addressing similar points - feel free to include the information in both articles, to the extent that it enhances either. By the way, I'm in Florida, but no one has yet called me counsellor here (although I have appended Esquire to my name, despite the missing Thirteenth Amendment. ;-) BD2412 T 22:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] James v. United States
I've done James v. United States - I'd welcome your review of it! Cheers. BD2412 T 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I just find tax protester arguments endlessly amusing (and frustrating) - guess I'm drawn to their nuttiness. I'm fairly fresh out of law school, and I took tax classes for my own edification. I also happened to witness a tax evasion case while doing a summer clerkship for a federal judge - which the defendant won on a Cheek style confusion argument. By the way, please feel free to add yourself to Category:Lawyer Wikipedians! BD2412 T 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RfC against BB69
Hi. I thought you might like to know that Taxman and I are discussing a possible RfC against BB69 on Taxman's talk page. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement
If you're still around, thought you might want to add a word to this discussion. BD2412 T 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
