OT:TaxMan Ebay

[nobodyspecial]

This is well stated but prompts the question; "Do you really know what those laws SAY, and to WHOM THEY APPLY? Are your elected representatives being honest with you about the LAW and to WHOM IT APPLIES? Have you agreed to one law only to have it enforced outside of it's original intent and lawful application?"

This is what is meant by "taxation with mis-representation". Representatives, elected or bureaucratic, can say the Law means anything they want. It's up to you as a citizen to discover it's meaning, it's intent, and it's application. Many, many Americans know more about 'Dancing With the Idol Survivor' than they know about their laws - specifically they laws that cost them money!

I, for one, have spent the last three decades studying the law, federal income tax laws in particular. What we're told the law says, and what the law ACTUALLY says are indeed two different things altogether. Those who know the law and act accordingly regarding the laws intent and application keep their earnings. Those who don't know the law and 'voluntarily comply' with what and how the "THINK" the law applies, needlessly spend a portion of their hard-won earnings on things they otherwise neither would want, need, or desire.

That, of course, is the reason and the meaning of terms like 'individual self assessment' and 'voluntary compliance'. That is our representatives (elected and bureaucratic) telling us, "we're have no intention of telling what the law IS. That is up to you to figure out. But after you've wisely or erroneously assessed your financial situation you can 'volunteer' to participate if you've determined that the secret law applies to you."

Our elected and bureaucratic representatives have sown a minefield of law, directive, regulation, statute, mendacity and deceit. It is up to each citizen to "Crack The Code" and read the map of that minefield to discover the clear path. Many, many Americans choose not to do that and would rather 'pay-up' to avoid the hassle (read: responsibility!). The pay-off of getting the answer right on "Let's Play Millionaire, You're Fired" is much more rewarding for some - expensive!...but somehow rewarding.

Anyone can P.M. me anytime for keys to the map if they'd like - or not. It too is voluntary!

-dixon cannon

Being a CPA I have a better handle on tax law than most others. I actually think most politicians don't understand a lot of the finer details of the tax laws they pass, in some cases the laws are too industry specific to grasp all the complexities. You want to change the tax laws, run for office and propose legislation to change the law; support candidates who favor change.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

That's a bit nuts in my opinion. Who then should pay taxes? Why would profits from ebay be different from profits from any other business?

Because most eBay businesses are sole-proprietorships operated by small business people in the several States outside of federal jurisdiction. (for one.)

And each of those individuals are directed to "individually assess" their own financial situation and "voluntarily comply" with tax laws based on the application of the law and the individual assessment. (secondly.)

Unless, of course, one advocates cohersive enforcement of arbitrary tax implimentation regardless of law.

-dixon cannon

 

[nobodyspecial]

Because most eBay businesses are sole-proprietorships operated by small business people in the several States outside of federal jurisdiction. (for one.)

And each of those individuals are directed to "individually assess" their own financial situation and "voluntarily comply" with tax laws based on the application of the law and the individual assessment. (secondly.)

Unless, of course, one advocates cohersive enforcement of arbitrary tax implimentation regardless of law.

-dixon cannon

That's utter nonsense.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Being a CPA I have a better handle on tax law than most others. I actually think most politicians don't understand a lot of the finer details of the tax laws they pass, in some cases the laws are too industry specific to grasp all the complexities. You want to change the tax laws, run for office and propose legislation to change the law; support candidates who favor change.[/QUOTE]

Music to my ears! Well stated - well received! :eusa_clap
-dixon cannon

 

[Dixon Cannon]

That's utter nonsense.

Well, we are certainly in agreement there! This whole question of government jurisdiction in income taxation is indeed "utter nonsense". If the tax laws were clearly written, devoid or legalisms and 'words of art', the jurisdiction and application of said laws would be much easier for the average citizen to decern. Most people concede and participate out of utter confusion with the nonsense, not out of any moral obligation to "pay their fair share" or because of a binding legal obligation.

On a positive note, many, many Americans (as a result of the internet) are becoming educated and savvy regarding tax laws and their applicability and are challenging the "common knowlege" about who, what and where is Constitutionally taxable. The 'nonsense' is beginning to be exposed for what is really is, and together we should be able to restore the 'rule of law' in place of the 'opinions of men'. You sound like, nobodyspecial, a good candidate!

-dixon cannon

 

[nobodyspecial]

I doubt we have much in common politically. The nonsense referred to your agruments posted in the quote.

All that aside, everyone's favorite tax is one that someone else has to pay.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

I doubt we have much in common politically. The nonsense referred to your agruments posted in the quote.

All that aside, everyone's favorite tax is one that someone else has to pay.

Perhaps not then. I'm about the Rule of Law, Constitutional Law and tax honesty. I think most people are - perhaps confused on how to get there - but most people are not authoritarian, statist, or covetous regarding other peoples wealth and property.

I think too, that most people, who are honest with themselves and their neighbors, would like to KNOW what the law is, how it applies, and be able to read that law in language they can understand.

I've always used the analogy; if you had a question about the gun laws in your state, county and community, those laws are clear, concise, available and easy to understand. (Here in Arizona that is an issue, as we are free to own, carry and use handguns openly). If one had a question about such a law not only would a representative gladly show you the law, explain the law and answer you question about the law. They'd print out a copy of the law and let you take it home to have and to hold.

Contrast that with Federally imposed income taxation (as an example). The law in convoluted, lengthy, and abstract. Every "tax professional" has a different opinion on it's applicability, and the governing bureaucracy often contradicts itself about the varied "interpretations" of the laws they are to enforce. And, speaking of enforcement, the same bureaucracy regards question or comments about the law as "frivolous" and openly states it will answer queries or "protests" with stern "enforcement". Nowhere, anywhere, is there a singlular law that states jurisdiction or applicability about an individuals direct obligation. There is only the assumption of liability and the "common knowledge" that everybody owes.

BUT, when one decides to look into the matter themselves, they begin to learn. Learn not only about the law and laws regarding the matter. But, more importantly about the kinds of people - politicians, bureaucrats, and 'professionals' - that would allow such a mendacious monstrosity of a behemoth laviathon (to mix metaphors!) to even exist - let alone prey on innocent victims - their own neighbors and fellow citizens.

The internet and web chat and discussion have made a hugh difference in the way this kind of information is disseminated and a more 'information oriented' generation is beginning to realize that what we thought was the law governing our economic lives, isn't really the original law, the intent of the law or the applicability of the law at all - the "common knowledge" of the proletariat not-withstanding.

I invite you to study and decern for yourself - many times 'nonsense' become 'sense' once one goes from 'thinking' to actually 'knowing'.

-dixon cannon

 

[Decodence]

That's idiotic. If anything, they should implement a sales tax (1% should do it), and require the sellers to collect it, and pay it as part of their listing fee.

 

[nobodyspecial]

There is no reason to modify the taxation of ebay sales, it's just another business. If you sold the same items out of a brick and mortar store front you'd report income and expenses on your tax return the same way.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

There is no reason to modify the taxation of ebay sales, it's just another business. If you sold the same items out of a brick and mortar store front you'd report income and expenses on your tax return the same way.

That's idiotic. If anything, they should implement a sales tax (1% should do it), and require the sellers to collect it, and pay it as part of their listing fee.

Idiotic. These kinds of issues are decided at the State, County and local level. Not as Federal Income Tax. State and local sales taxes are a completely different matter. It's the reason, for example, that so many corporations are formed in DL or NV.

-dixon cannon

 

[Mike in Seattle]

It's the reason, for example, that so many corporations are formed in DL or NV.

Those were the old days - when corporations paid taxes or could only be sued in the state of their "headquarters." Those days are long gone - all corporations now have to pay state income tax on the income derived in the states they operate & have offices in.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

The IRS is an evil empire... in fact, it was started by the out break of WWII... and the tyranny hasn't stopped since! In fact, I saw a special about the IRS and how there really isn't any laws stating that one HAS to pay income tax... it's all a racket!

Actually, that's not correct. Personal income tax in the US started in 1913...I've always thought it ironic the first income tax returns were due on the one year anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Actually, that's not correct. Personal income tax in the US started in 1913...I've always thought it ironic the first income tax returns were due on the one year anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic.

Actually, it's partly correct inasmuch as the WITHHOLDING of a workers earnings from the paycheck began during WWII for workers at defense plants and government offices to ease their burden in calculating their taxes while defending our nation against Fascism. It was, oddly enough, the brainchild of Milton Friedman!

The plan was propagated through newreels and Disney cartoons to encourage others to sign 'Voluntary Withholding Agreements' - even those to whom the Income Tax didn't apply. It has metastasized into the cancer we call 'our taxes' today.

Most of us participate out of tradition and blind habit, never knowing that it never was meant for us to begin with. We're too busy earning to ever stop and learn, it seems.


-dixon cannon

 

[Warbaby]

When it comes to income tax, I'm definitely on the same page as Mr. Cannon and have been for about the same length of time.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

This voluntary withholding notion interests me. Is this how it still works? I was never asked if i wanted to partcipate. So there was no way f not havng the money with-held.

interested,

bk

 

[nobodyspecial]

That's idiotic. If anything, they should implement a sales tax (1% should do it), and require the sellers to collect it, and pay it as part of their listing fee.

Idiotic. These kinds of issues are decided at the State, County and local level. Not as Federal Income Tax. State and local sales taxes are a completely different matter. It's the reason, for example, that so many corporations are formed in DL or NV.

-dixon cannon

My understanding of the Delaware and Nevada corporations has more to do with the quirks of various state laws, but not state taxation of corporate earnings. I could start a corporation based in Minnesota, but incorporated in Nevada, and I would still be subjected to Minnesota corporate income tax. If I add a factory in Wisonsin I'll have to pay Wisconsin corporate income taxes as well. Nearly every state has some manner of taxing corporate profits if you have a building, payroll or inventory in the particular state. The income gets prorated and you pay a portion of state corporate income tax to each of the affected states.

 

[nobodyspecial]

This voluntary withholding notion interests me. Is this how it still works? I was never asked if i wanted to partcipate. So there was no way f not havng the money with-held.

interested,

bk

You can have as much or as little tax, even zero, withheld from your paycheck as you want. The end result is you will owe more or less when you file your annual income tax return. To the extent you owe a large sum when you file your annual income tax return the IRS levels penalties for underpayment of tax. That is, the government needs cash flow throughout the year just like the rest of us, without the penalties in place there would be no incentive to pay as you go. So you can have nothing withheld throughout the year, but as a practical matter there is a disincentive to do so. You can also make quarterly payments on your own, rather than through your job, many self employed and retired people pay estimated taxes this way.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

This voluntary withholding notion interests me. Is this how it still works? I was never asked if i wanted to partcipate. So there was no way f not havng the money with-held.

Yep - you were asked. It's the W-4 form you fill out with your employer. You can fill it out and claim "exempt." Anyone filing exempt or for a number of exemptions over, I believe 6 or 8 now, has a copy of their form sent along to the IRS with the next quarter's payroll tax return for the IRS to review.

And if you have nothing withheld and end up owing a large amount on that year's tax return, besides the underpayment penalty & interest that's tacked on, the IRS will usually notify your employers, banks, brokerages, etc. to start withholding the maximum amount of taxes on all of your wages, interest, dividends or gross proceeds (sale price) of any stock sales you make until they've decided that you've been a good boy long enough to be trusted to go back to claiming a realistic number of exemptions.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

This voluntary withholding notion interests me. Is this how it still works? I was never asked if i wanted to partcipate. So there was no way f not havng the money with-held. interested,
bk

Hi BK, You first begin by writing to your company's payroll department and tell them that you want to terminate your W4 Withholding agreements persuant to 26 CFR 31.3402 (p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements. Send this letter Certified so that you have documentation and a received signature.

Your company will, based on IRS propaganda and "Payroll Professional jargon" deny that you can terminate your withholding and will continue to withhold and insist on your filing the "mandatory" W4. Make sure that you get that in writing from the company individual responsible for payroll - save it!

Your company will undoubtedly continue to treat you as a "taxpayer" and will submit to the IRS the information return with which it reports your "income".

Each year when you now are forced to file a Form 1040 to get a "refund" of your earnings withheld, you attach a completed IRS Form 4852 asserting the all of the W4 withholdings are in error (the amount totals being correct) and are entitled to a COMPLETE refund of all taxes withheld, including Social Security and Medicare.

The lawful reasoning behind this process is that you have no "privileged income - wages" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code Sections 3401(a) and 3121(a). You are rebutting their claim, stating that you are a private-sector citizen (non-federal employee) employed by a private-sector company (non-federal entity) as defined in 3401(c) (d). You are not employed in a “trade or business” nor are you an “officer of a corporation”.

As such, you are rebutting the third party claim that you qualify for withholding, that you must have a portion of your earnings deducted, that they have asserted to IRS is "taxable income". Your rebuttal negates the company's wrongful assertion that you have "taxable income" and thus ALL amounts withheld are refunded accordingly.

Think I err?! Not convinced?! Nonsense?! Idiotic?!

Visit my blogspot for starters: http://www.riddlesolved.blogspot.com/ and click on 'Why It Matters' first. Click all the links. Read. Study. Know. Act.

-dixon cannon

 

[nobodyspecial]

Hi BK, You first begin by writing to your company's payroll department and tell them that you want to terminate your W4 Withholding agreements persuant to 26 CFR 31.3402 (p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements. Send this letter Certified so that you have documentation and a received signature.

Your company will, based on IRS propaganda and "Payroll Professional jargon" deny that you can terminate your withholding and will continue to withhold and insist on your filing the "mandatory" W4. Make sure that you get that in writing from the company individual responsible for payroll - save it!

Your company will undoubtedly continue to treat you as a "taxpayer" and will submit to the IRS the information return with which it reports your "income".

Each year when you now are forced to file a Form 1040 to get a "refund" of your earnings withheld, you attach a completed IRS Form 4852 asserting the all of the W4 withholdings are in error (the amount totals being correct) and are entitled to a COMPLETE refund of all taxes withheld, including Social Security and Medicare.

The lawful reasoning behind this process is that you have no "privileged income - wages" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code Sections 3401(a) and 3121(a). You are rebutting their claim, stating that you are a private-sector citizen (non-federal employee) employed by a private-sector company (non-federal entity) as defined in 3401(c) (d). You are not employed in a “trade or business” nor are you an “officer of a corporation”.

As such, you are rebutting the third party claim that you qualify for withholding, that you must have a portion of your earnings deducted, that they have asserted to IRS is "taxable income". Your rebuttal negates the company's wrongful assertion that you have "taxable income" and thus ALL amounts withheld are refunded accordingly.

Think I err?! Not convinced?! Nonsense?! Idiotic?!

Visit my blogspot for starters: http://www.riddlesolved.blogspot.com/ and click on 'Why It Matters' first. Click all the links. Read. Study. Know. Act.

-dixon cannon

My personal view is I wouldn't follow the above line of crap for love or money. Eventually the IRS catches up with those following this logic and they end up paying large penalties at best or going to jail at worst.