IRS gives wrong information about taxes

[Reager]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information a

Except that it's NOT reality! NO ONE has EVER been able to produce ANYTHING from the framers showing they intended the Constitution to be interpreted at all! They were very equivocal in the way they phrased things, and they did add in a process of amendment so that the Constitution COULD be modified if it no longer fit what needed to be done.

I'd just as soon save the original intent debate for another time. Frankly, I never was never much persuaded by it.

Tiny nitpick. They can still make the accusation and the government can put them in jail. And it's very hard to defend yourself; you basically have to prove your innocence, an almost impossible task.

It's not a "tiny nitpick." Youre whole argument is based on this ludicrous notion that we live under a tyrannical regime. Tyrannical governments do not guarantee citizens due process. Tyrannical governments do not provide trial by jury. Whereas a tyrannical state might just allow civil servants working for the tax agency to put anyone in jail for nonpayment of taxes, our government does not. I wouldn't know specifically about how difficult it is to defend yourself from a criminal prosecution for tax evasion, but I would think that most prosecutions for tax evasion are based on more evidence than someone merely "making a mistake" on their tax return.

Not by a vote of the people.

Are you serious? Administrative agencies should have their day-to-day operating procedures and regulations voted upon by the people? In heavan's name, why?

That doesn't seem to respond to my point. Are you conceding that your cop example is invalid?

And are we kidding anyone here, that if this were a private corporation they wouldn't be held liable?

For the sake of moving on, I will grant that the cop example isn't precisely analagous. However, in my prior post I *was* responding to your point. If it's unfair to punish people for getting incorrect advice received from the government, then the laws can be changed to rectify that inequity. It doesn't mean the entire government is bogus.

Mike

 

[peptoabysmal]

I can't imagine why the tax code isn't declared unconstitutionally vague. This is why there should be a flat tax, no deductions, exemptions, etc.

The whole tax code is a shell game used to appease special interests and micro-manage behavior. This is why politicians like it complicated.

A flat rate has always been bantered about, and never takes hold. The reason? The argument gets flipped around to "Oh my God, you are asking the poor people to pay the same rate as the rich people, that's just not fair".

 

[DavidJames]

"Oh my God, you are asking the poor people to pay the same rate as the rich people, that's just not fair".

Actually I've never heard that argument, maybe you have an example somewhere you could post.

What I have heard are complaints by lots of people related to the home buying business, charities and other areas who believe that if "their" deductions were eliminated it would spell doom for them.

I would favor a flat tax. I haven't thought a lot about the details however. But I would like to hear from those that are knowledgeable in the area.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong infor

Youre whole argument is based on this ludicrous notion that we live under a tyrannical regime. Tyrannical governments do not guarantee citizens due process. Tyrannical governments do not provide trial by jury.

Have you ever followed an Income Tax case? There isn't much in the way of due process, the person is presumed guilty unless they prove their innocence, and no, they usually don't get a jury trial!

Are you serious? Administrative agencies should have their day-to-day operating procedures and regulations voted upon by the people? In heavan's name, why?

When did I say that? I'm just saying that, if a government agent whose purpose is to dispense truthful information about the law gives someone incorrect information, and that person violates the law as a result of that incorrect information, then that should be a proper defense.

If it's unfair to punish people for getting incorrect advice received from the government, then the laws can be changed to rectify that inequity.

Hmmm...Sounds to me like you're the one saying administrative procedures should be regulated here...

 

[shanek]

What I have heard are complaints by lots of people related to the home buying business, charities and other areas who believe that if "their" deductions were eliminated it would spell doom for them.

Actually, according to Giving USA, the ability to deduct donations from taxes doesn't really affect the amount donated. The vast majority of donations aren't even reported.

I would favor a flat tax.

So would I...as long as the flat rate is 0%.

 

[Reager]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong infor

Have you ever followed an Income Tax case? There isn't much in the way of due process, the person is presumed guilty unless they prove their innocence,

Evidence? What makes prosecution for tax evasion different than any other criminal prosecution, where due process and the presumption of innocence exist?

and no, they usually don't get a jury trial!

Probably because they never get to trial. According to the IRS, over 85% of cases are settled during the appeals process.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/irs/article/0,,id=96750,00.html

I couldn't find anything on the stats, but here are examples of some jury trials:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/030201/Hillsborough/Evans_co_defendant_s_.shtml

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/November97/452tax.htm.html

http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/McAnlis2.html

When did I say that?

Right here:

Me: Huh? Adminstrative regulations are changed all the time.

You: Not by a vote of the people.

I'm just saying that, if a government agent whose purpose is to dispense truthful information about the law gives someone incorrect information, and that person violates the law as a result of that incorrect information, then that should be a proper defense.

I suggest writing your Congressperson or getting involved in an organization dedicated to that cause. Political activism can work wonders!

Hmmm...Sounds to me like you're the one saying administrative procedures should be regulated here...

Huh? They are regulated, and I never said they shouldn't be.

Mike

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wro

Evidence? What makes prosecution for tax evasion different than any other criminal prosecution, where due process and the presumption of innocence exist?

Due process requires that the government provide the accused with a clear notice of the claim against them and a hearing before government action can be executed. The IRS engages in summary judgements and enforces them before the judicial determination is made. Due process also requires probable cause to be shown before a search and siezure can be made. But section 7602 of the tax code allows the IRS to obtain any financial records it wants without having to show probable cause or obtain a court order.

Also, the IRS does not have to prove that its accusations are correct. The accused is left with the extensive burden of proving that the IRS is wrong.

You also do not have a right to trial by jury when accused by the IRS. In order to contest a ruling by the IRS, one must file a petition with the US Tax Court. This is not an Article III court, so no trial by jury is available. The only way you could get a trial by jury is to file for a suit in US District Court, but before you can do that, you must pay the disputed amount in full and even if you win it's up to you to retrieve the money. Also, since you would be the plaintiff in the case, the burden of proof is on you again.

Read Daniel J. Pilla, "A Monument of Deficient Wisdom," Report no. 165, Institute for Policy Innovation (PDF)

I suggest writing your Congressperson or getting involved in an organization dedicated to that cause.

I have an I am.

Political activism can work wonders!

But this is a mammoth to fight. Not even Congressman Ron Paul has had any luck making any dents.

 

[Reager]

Due process requires ... [snip]

I don't know enough about tax disputes to evaluate the validity of that study right now. I'm not here to defend how the government collects taxes. I took issue with very specific points you made, namely that we live in a national with a tyrannical government where the IRS can put you in jail for nonpayment of taxes without due process or proper trial (I don't believe the Patriot Act has yet been used to go after tax evaders). I saw nothing in that summary which referred to criminal prosecutions for tax evasion - and you studiously ignored the links I posted which involved both indictment by a grand jury AND subsequent trial by jury.

Also, I noticed you didn't respond to this point:

Me: Adminstrative regulations are changed all the time.

You: Not by a vote of the people.

Do you still believe that administrative regulations should be voted upon by the people? Or did you misspeak?

Mike

 

[EvilYeti]

Why is something good just because it's in the Constitution? Aren't you aware that slavery was once codified and enforced in the Constitution?

Aren't you aware that Libertarianism is based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution? You yourself said the document wasn't open to interpretation. So is it or isn't it?
Do you think Libertarianism is wrong?

And what about the fact that the Constitution only gives the government the power to post roads; it does NOT give government the power to prevent others from doing the same?

There are private roads all over the country! Your driveway is a private road! The STREET in front is a PUBLIC road because the government uses it to deliver POST, just like it was authorized in the constitution. The constitution PROHIBITS private interests to own POST roads!

Oh, right, I forgot—you're a sick troll who has no real interest in rational debate at all. Silly me.

How is it trolling to point out your are in contradiction of Libertarianism, the Constitutions, external sources and yourself? You're trolling yourself as far as I can tell, I'm just demonstrating it to the audience.

 

[shanek]

Do you still believe that administrative regulations should be voted upon by the people?

No, I'm saying that those responsible for making the administrative regulations are not elected officials, and therefore not answerable to the voters.

Oh, and make no mistake: The US tax court can send you to jail. I also showed how a person can maneuver to get a trial by jury, and this is consistent with the cases you posted.

 

[shanek]

Aren't you aware that Libertarianism is based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution?

Uh, no, it isn't, and I challenge you again to find an official LP source stating such. Most Libertarians I'm aware of do say that there are problems with the Constitution. The reason why we're so steadfast about defending it is that, warts and all, it is the Supreme Law of the Land, and if any reforms are to be at all meaningful then we have to restore the rule of law to Washington. THEN we can worry about fixing the problems with the Constitution, which is quite doable through the amendment process.

In fact, many Libertarians are in favor of the Liberty Amendment:

Article of Amendment

SECTION 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.

SECTION 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States, shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.

SECTION 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purposes of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

SECTION 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.

It was even introduced into Congress by Ron Paul, and has already been ratified by nine states (29 more needed to become an amendment).

So, yet again, this is more of your ignorant trolling.

There are private roads all over the country!

Through streets aren't. In most places, the only private roads that are allowed to exist are through private housing developments.

The constitution PROHIBITS private interests to own POST roads!

Where?

 

[Reager]

Oh, and make no mistake: The US tax court can send you to jail. I also showed how a person can maneuver to get a trial by jury, and this is consistent with the cases you posted.

It's consistent, but meaningless...unless you can show that those criminal prosecutions were actually brought by the defendants against the government (which makes no sense whatever). It appears the "maneuvering" you speak of refers to how a taxpayer facing a civil suit for nonpayment may obtain a jury trial. You have provided nothing that shows defendants who are prosecuted for criminal tax evasion are denied a fair trial. I bet that just sticks in your craw, doesn't it...that this "tyrannical" government actually plays by the rules sometimes..Damn them!

Mike

Edited to add: BTW, nice shifting there, Shanek...before you were claiming that the IRS sends people to jail, which is not true. Now it's "the US tax court." What is it with some people and simply admitting they were wrong about something?

 

[EvilYeti]

The reason why we're so steadfast about defending it is that, warts and all, it is the Supreme Law of the Land, and if any reforms are to be at all meaningful then we have to restore the rule of law to Washington. THEN we can worry about fixing the problems with the Constitution, which is quite doable through the amendment process.

Ok, so the Consitution is the supreme rule of law, until the Libs. take over and gut it. You guys are REAL patriots, lemme tell ya.

In fact, many Libertarians are in favor of the Liberty Amendment:

It'll never happen.

Through streets aren't. In most places, the only private roads that are allowed to exist are through private housing developments.

Streets are postal roads. The government is provided authority over them to deliver mail. My parents live at the end of a mile long private road. The mail box is on the public street.

Where?

In the Consitution. If a road is needed to deliver mail then the Constitution grants the government control over it. Many of the roads in our country date back to pre-revolutionary war days and were used to this end. I used to live off of one, Washington Valley Road in NJ.

Its not hard to see how you need to have public streets pretty much everywhere to guarantee mail delivery.

 

[Tony]

Ok, so the Consitution is the supreme rule of law, until the Libs. take over and gut it. You guys are REAL patriots, lemme tell ya.

Thats not true and you know it. This is a deliberate and obvious misrepresentation.

 

[shanek]

In the Consitution.

Quote it, troll. Quote the Constitution forbidding the private sector from running post roads.

BTW, mail delivery people go on private property all the time, in the aforementioned private housing developments I mentioned. That does NOT mean that the government can take over the road.

By the way, most of the post offices prior to the late 19th Century were PRIVATE. The government only became the sole provider of postal mail delivery because they made all of the others illegal and granted themselves a monopoly.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about; but that doesn't matter...you're only here to troll.

 

[EvilYeti]

Quote it, troll. Quote the Constitution forbidding the private sector from running post roads.

Sure thing retard, but given your reading disability I doubt you will understand it.

Section 8 clause 7

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(5 clauses snipped)

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads

That right is granted to the federal government and federal government only, no private industry. No room for interpretation dingus.

Considering that right to coin money and punish counterfeiters is also granted, I would say that the founding fathers made it pretty clear the clauses did not apply to the private sector.

BTW, mail delivery people go on private property all the time, in the aforementioned private housing developments I mentioned. That does NOT mean that the government can take over the road.

Wrong, people who live on private roads have their mailboxes on the public street. My parents live at the end of mile+ private road and have to drive to pick up their mail. Their neighbors on the private road have to do the same, all the mailboxes are in the same place. The road is maintained by the community, its very Libertarian! The government won't drive on private roads without permission, thats trespassing.
Every other private road I've encountered is the same.

By the way, most of the post offices prior to the late 19th Century were PRIVATE. The government only became the sole provider of postal mail delivery because they made all of the others illegal and granted themselves a monopoly.

Someone should tell that to FedEx and UPS. And all the other private carriers.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about; but that doesn't matter...you're only here to troll.

Have you ever made a cohesive, correct and compelling argument about anything, ever?

 

[shanek]

Sure thing retard, but given your reading disability I doubt you will understand it.

Section 8 clause 7

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(5 clauses snipped)

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads

That right is granted to the federal government and federal government only, no private industry.

It doesn't say that! It gives the power to the Federal government, but does NOT give them the power to stop private industry from doing the same!

No room for interpretation dingus.

So why are you?

Considering that right to coin money and punish counterfeiters is also granted, I would say that the founding fathers made it pretty clear the clauses did not apply to the private sector.

Counterfieting is directly enumerated as a Federal crime in the Constitution. Running a Post Office isn't.

Wrong, people who live on private roads have their mailboxes on the public street.

I know many places where that isn't the case.

My parents live at the end of mile+ private road and have to drive to pick up their mail. Their neighbors on the private road have to do the same, all the mailboxes are in the same place.

Probably because it's cheaper for them to do that than to go a mile out of the way to deliver mail for just one person.

The government won't drive on private roads without permission, thats trespassing.

Putting up a mailbox for mail delivery doesn't constitute permission to deliver mail there?

Someone should tell that to FedEx and UPS. And all the other private carriers.

They can't carry mail; only parcel delivery. They can't actually deliver first class mail. And they couldn't even do parcel delivery until the 1970's, when the government gave up their monopoly on it.

How about actually learning what you're talking about for once?