OT:TaxMan Ebay

[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.

My experience has been that any "professional" that earns his living by doing the "individual self-assessment" for others will undoubtedly interpret that information to call for a long and complicated return with various warnings, caveats, and exemptions, thus assuring the return (repeat business) of the individual to repeat the process again next year and the next. This is of course why the plethora of "tax professionals", certified accountants, enrolled agents, etc, etc, etc. All beneficiaries of the scheme through the selling of "services" to those confused and confounded by the Code.

Any attempt to unleash oneself and to understand and act is tantamount to mutiny and self-determination, equivolent to a mere passenger attempting to fly the jet - "how dare you think you have the skill, knowledge or ability to do my job of running your life!?"... "get back in coral you maverick!"

The fact of the matter is that a great many self-determined individuals do their own "assessment" each year, determine their tax liability, "voluntary comply" with the tax laws so as to receive a complete and total refund of erroneously withheld earnings each and every year. The totals of complete refunds stands today at some $3m and counting.

For those stuck in the paradigm of the past, where only a few annointed could possibly understand the law, read the law and assess liability for a "taxpayer" in the quiet confines of a paneled office, it is difficult to realize that there has been a shift. The internet has changed everything! One can discuss their financial situation in real time with someone elsewhere and receive up-to-the-minute answers and advice for FREE. The IRS Code is digitized and searchable by any layman who can now, themselves, determine how and where they may be liable for any tax - or not.

I encourage anyone, including vested, entrenched "professionals" to learn for themselves how or if the IRC applys to you and your current financial situation. Maybe it does. But, just maybe, it doesn't. Many, many American citizens are discovering that it doesn't and they've been getting erroneous advice, assistance and "services" needlessly for years.

A good reading of the essay "Why It Matters" on my blog is, though shocking, quite informative and eye-opening. Don't be afraid to learn something (Old!) new.

-dixon cannon

 

[nobodyspecial]

You're right, it's all one big conspiracy so that tax preparers have a job. You can use the same line of logic to prove UFO's exist; "Because you can't disprove I saw a UFO means that in fact UFO's do exist, you just don't want to believe me."

 

[Dixon Cannon]

You're right, it's all one big conspiracy so that tax preparers have a job. You can use the same line of logic to prove UFO's exist; "Because you can't disprove I saw a UFO means that in fact UFO's do exist, you just don't want to believe me."

Not a good retort, nbs. Methinks you've run out of arguments on this subject. Time to retrench and do some recurrent training. Might I suggest an excellent read? "Cracking The Code" by Peter E. Hendrickson is an excellent starting point.

Sincerely,
dixon dannon

 

[Baron Kurtz]

It's a moot point for me since i no longer live or earn in the USA. Just interested, is all.

bk

 

[nobodyspecial]

Not a good retort, nbs. Methinks you've run out of arguments on this subject. Time to retrench and do some recurrent training. Might I suggest an excellent read? "Cracking The Code" by Peter E. Hendrickson is an excellent starting point.

Sincerely,
dixon dannon

It may not be a good retort, but it doesn't make your argument any less stupid.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

It may not be a good retort, but it doesn't make your argument any less stupid.

One can see that you are grasping now nbs - ad hominen attacks will be next, no doubt. I never pretended that all this IRC, Income Tax, Withholding, form, filing, yadda, yadda, yadda... was anything but stupid!

As for my arguments, you may call it what you will, if that is the extent of your knowledge, understanding and comprehension. But as thin as any of your responses have been on this thread, I would have to regard them as ignorant, inasmuch as the author is lacking in knowledge in the area of discussion - the very definition of ignorance. That's why I suggested you come up to speed by reading a little bit on the subject.

There is nothing stupid about knowing the law or acting on it according to it's intent. There is nothing stupid about filing a lawful return to recoup property that has been erroneously withheld from one's earnings under color of law - a portion or all of which would be kept by the recipient less one assert their lawful rights, file a properly executed return, rebutting the assertions made by a third party on an information return, and rightfully claiming and demanding the return of their property. Which I might add is THE purpose of filing an income tax return in the first place.

I know that your livelihood rests on the hope that not too many intelligent people think and act on their own and rightfully file a properly executed income tax return; thus your intractable stance on the issue that points to a closed mind.

No doubt prior to asserting "stupid" to the facts that I've presented, you didn't bother to look at anything in the resources that I provided. Geez!... that just seems stupid to me.

I'm concluding this dialogue with you now nbs. If you need any additional information in your upcoming research on the subject, feel free to P.M. me and I'll share what I KNOW. Otherwise lets not bore our host and the other FL guests with slings and arrows that lack information others might find valuable. I've made my case clearly enough and anyone on the Lounge can inquire with me for more if they so desire.

Good Night and Good Luck,
-dixon cannon

 

[BellyTank]

I did try it... I lived in Canada for two years... and I'm damn glad I didn't have anything serious to go see a doctor for! Because, the waiting list was LOOOONG! And people get treated for one thing, when they really have another illness!

May work for some, but, I don't want my hard earned money paying for others... that's why we have the US... because people were sick and tired of the "Royal Treatment" If you know what I mean... lol So, we came here, colonized, and then finally broke away from the English.

I feel that Ebay sellers shouldn't be taxed... ya know why? Because, the government receives more then enough money from the US people already!

And the very idea of the three stooges who are running in the race for the presidency is scaaaaaaaaaaaary! Because, anyone of them mugs are goin' to up taxes!

NUTS TO THAT!

R=

I think you missed putting about another 25 laughing smilies in this post,
unless of course, some of it was meant to be serious...


B
T

 

[jamespowers]

I think you missed putting about another 25 laughing smilies in this post,
unless of course, some of it was meant to be serious...


B
T

Its serious. Especially the part about rationed care. :eusa_doh:

 

[nobodyspecial]

Tax disputes ultimately get settled in the courts. Until you, Dixon, can come up with a large body of court cases suporting your theories you have nothing to stand on. You say you study and research the issue, however that does not mean the conclusions you arrive at are legally valid. There are plenty of web sites that put up legal arguments countering the assertions you put forth. You seem to believe taxation is some form of conspiracy created by politicians, the IRS and tax preparers. This is the sort of material that would make for a good X-Files movie. Of course you can't be proved correct since everyone in the system is part of the conspiracy and therefore you can't get a fair shake. So, who is playing the part of the smoking man? Who is the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain? Decade after decade, the truly wealthy who have the most to gain by not paying taxes, simply go along with the ruse? You can believe what you want to believe.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Tax disputes ultimately get settled in the courts.

Decade after decade, the truly wealthy who have the most to gain by not paying taxes, simply go along with the ruse?

Pretty amazing, isn't it? And here I thought that the USAF managing to keep the F-117 a secret for almost a decade was a record!

I've done a bit of surfing around, checked out some of the links DC referred to, went to Amazon, Googled, all that... and mostly what I have found is that whenever anyone posts anything negative regarding that book or it's ideas they're instantly jumped on with cries of "IRS shill!" or "Tax preparer shill!" or the like. No, I'm not going to spend my money on that book--I'd rather spend what little spending money I have on hats --so I checked my local library system for it. Unfortunately, they don't have it.

But that's OK. I'm sure that I could look up the sections of the tax code that are referenced and sure enough, there it'll be just as quoted in the book. The question, of course, the context and the interpretations applied. There's lots of assertions out there that the Code is not Law; but from what I've seen, the US refers to the Law as the Code. As for the tax lawyers and CPAs and preparers all in a conspiracy with the IRS and the rest of the government, well, anything is possible, I suppose. But I hardly think that criminal defense attorneys would be going along with such a conspiracy if it means losing client's cases in court. How many gangsters/mobsters/bad guys have been sent to prison using the tax laws when they couldn't be brought down any other way? Would their lawyers ignore a means to acquittal if one existed?

Granted, the Code needs to be cut down a bit--as the Sprint commercial says "One page or less." Like anyone else, I'd prefer to pay less in income tax--but I also recognize that without some sort of tax we'd have no way to pay for the things we expect our government to take care of.

To bring this back towards the original topic, the question of paying income tax on any profit made from ebay sales is something I'm having to look at--as well as income from being a "contractor" to Motorcycle Ohio as an instructor and as a "contractor" as a computer technician for a local company. None of those three take out income taxes from what I receive and, this being new to me, I need to come up with a way to determine what my actual income is from any sales I make.

I guess I need to read some books on small business. If I purchase a hat, clean and repair it as needed, and sell it for more than I paid for it, how do I determine if I've made a profit and how much income did I earn? Do I simply subtract the original purchase/shipping cost total from the selling cost and the difference is my income? What about the value of my time in cleaning/repairing it? Cost of any materials used such as new ribbon or sweatband and thread? What price do I put on my time?

Not new and unique questions--anyone who has become serious about selling on ebay as a source of income has to consider the same questions. What's unique for me is that I'm the one asking them--and I'm the one who has to come up with answers that won't cost me (by not putting a value on my own time, for instance) while being reasonable. In the end I hope to avoid creating any circumstances that would result in a tax dispute being settled in court.

Regards,
Tom

 

[nobodyspecial]

Your time is considered to be worth nothing (always the case). You need to save up all your receipts and deduct your costs against the sales proceeds.
Sale price of hat
less cost of hat
less cost of materials to restore hat
less mileage to thrift store to buy the hat
less mileage to the store to buy materials to restore hat
less ebay fees
less paypal fees
less depreciation of pc
less depreciation of camera
...
= net profit on sale

 

[Tango Yankee]

Your time is considered to be worth nothing (always the case).

Bummer.

Actually, now that I think about it (bearing in mind that it's after midnight and I'm rather tired!:eusa_doh: ) I suppose that at the end of the sale my time would be worth whatever the actual profit turned out to be--the income.

As for the rest, gets pretty complicated fast, doesn't it?

Thanks, nobodyspecial!

Tom

 

[miss_elise]

well, hopefully there's some way to jig the numbers so you have a zero net profit...

 

[nobodyspecial]

well, hopefully there's some way to jig the numbers so you have a zero net profit...

For that you have to pay me by the hour.

 

[miss_elise]

For that you have to pay me by the hour.

if my husband wasn't an accountant, and if i didn't live in australia... i would totally...

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Tax disputes ultimately get settled in the courts. Until you, Dixon, can come up with a large body of court cases suporting your theories you have nothing to stand on. You say you study and research the issue, however that does not mean the conclusions you arrive at are legally valid. There are plenty of web sites that put up legal arguments countering the assertions you put forth. You seem to believe taxation is some form of conspiracy created by politicians, the IRS and tax preparers. This is the sort of material that would make for a good X-Files movie. Of course you can't be proved correct since everyone in the system is part of the conspiracy and therefore you can't get a fair shake. So, who is playing the part of the smoking man? Who is the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain? Decade after decade, the truly wealthy who have the most to gain by not paying taxes, simply go along with the ruse? You can believe what you want to believe.

Well I was right! You didn't read any of the references I posted. I better send your post to the ten of thousands of non-taxpayers who have received and are receiving the full and complete refunds of erroneously withheld earnings after properly filing a correctly completed 1040/4852. And, I fully support your right to "voluntarily comply" with tax laws that don't apply to you; God knows Big Brother needs the money! But as I don't pay a liquor tax ('cause I don't owe one!), and as I don't pay a tobacco tax ('cause I don't owe one!), neither do I pay an income tax - 'cause I gots no taxable income! It's as simple as that. Perhaps you (think) do!

These good folks who've posted their refund checks though, KNOW they are IRC recognized 'non-taxpayers' as am I (and probably most of you all!):
http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories.htm (can't deny it!)

-dixon cannon

 

[nobodyspecial]

The Smoking Man stopped me in the parking lot and he told me to post this link.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

 

[Tango Yankee]

The Smoking Man stopped me in the parking lot and he told me to post this link.

Did he complain about the high taxes he's paying on his cigarettes? lol

Good link, thanks. I hadn't come across that one.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[nobodyspecial]

Did he complain about the high taxes he's paying on his cigarettes? lol

Good link, thanks. I hadn't come across that one.

Cheers,
Tom

There is a rumor floating around, and I haven't tracked down whether this is true or not, but the Smoking Man gets his cigarettes for free since he's in on the conspiracy.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

The above definition of "Tax Protester" doesn't fit anyone I know. One would have to have an objection to a tax that they owe in order to be a 'tax protester'. I have no objection or protest with any lawfully applied, Constitutional tax whatsoever. I just file a properly executed return to obtain my erroneously withheld earnings, that's all. No protest, objection, or debate required or necessary.

One thing that has been left off the list which separates the "us from them" is the following"

“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [officers, employees, and elected officials of the Federal Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government]. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law. With them[non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.”

[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)]

-dixon "non-taxpayer" cannon