Date: Mon Mar 17 19:02:10 2008
Sender: Dan Hilsgen
Hey,
I live in Minnesota in the suburbs around the Twin Cities (Minneapolis / St.
Paul).
I always do my personal taxes on my own but this year I have to do taxes for my
new LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) too.
I want to go to a trained professional this year to make sure that they are
done correctly and also to find out the forms n' such I need to do them (so
that in the future if I so choose I can do them myself).
I know H&R Block is the big one but I was wondering if anyone had any
suggestions as to other places to consider going in my area?
I also am looking for in a tax preparer a guarantee that if I am audited that I
pay no penalties or anything.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Date: Mon Mar 17 20:02:30 2008
Sender: Laurent Boudias
I also created an LLC but I will try to do it myself. If you are the only
member, it shouldn't be too difficult.
I think whatever you made is to be declared on your own tax return. The LLC
itself doesn't pay tax, well except personal property tax but I pay only to
fill out the return, since the LLC doesn't own property.
So incomes are like my W2's, maybe a different form, and expenses are
deductible, if within the business activity. I think that's that simple.
I'm not sure though, as I haven't had time to look at it closely yet.
Date: Mon Mar 17 20:05:08 2008
Sender: Laurent Boudias
That's the page I am referring
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=137016,00.html
Date: Tue Mar 18 11:22:42 2008
Sender: Dan Hilsgen
Thanks man. Will look into it further (and that link) when I get the chance
here in the next couple of days.
I didn't make even a penny on my business last year so that should not affect
my personal taxes at all.
If anyone else has some suggestions I am open to any and all!
Date: Tue Mar 18 12:21:30 2008
Sender: Dan Hilsgen
That page is a bit confusing. I think in the first year I will stick with my
original plan of just going to see a tax guy and bite the bullet on the cost of
doing so for the peace of mind that it was done correctly and the knowledge I
will glean from it hopefully.
Date: Sat Mar 22 11:03:49 2008
Sender: Jason Stafford
DEL must have the only message board lacking the 'Taxes are unconstitutional
and I dont pay them' guy. Every other board I go to, when ever taxes are
mentioned this guy is there quick.
Date: Sat Mar 22 11:12:18 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
I love that guy! I give him a thorough, sound, embarrassing logical and
intellectual thrashing every time.
They usually get real quiet after that.
Date: Sat Mar 22 14:20:25 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Taxes aren't unconstitutional. A federal income tax is highly sketchy, however.
I do pay it though.
Date: Sat Mar 22 14:40:23 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
The federal income tax has been approved as constitutional by every body that
has been asked to rule on it.
Courts will now lay a "frivolity fine" on anyone silly enough to even bring up
the issue, because they consider it so well settled.
Date: Sat Mar 22 19:14:20 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Remind me again what pays these judges' salaries? Oh, taxes. Really?
Shocking that they would then find the federal income tax acceptable, following
the lead of the IRS which makes the same claim.
There's also the old income vs. wages argument as well.
IN 1913 when the income tax was re-enacted after the Civil War tax was
repealed, it was essentially a 1% tax on the top 1%. And income was basically
defined as profit. The IRS somehow defines wages as 100% profit.
I dare say, it is not that now, and so is not covered by the same document that
created it.
Sometimes people dismiss slippery slope arguments as fallacy. This is the very
definition of the slippery slope. The populists and socialists pushed to get
this in and finally did, and then it just kept growing and growing as more
populists and socialists molded it to what they really wanted to do.
Anyone that advocates giving up power to the government because "it's just a
little bit and it's just the rich" needs to remember this. This is how wage
slavery was born.
Date: Sat Mar 22 19:22:36 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
So all the judges and legal experts in the world are on the take because of
their salaries, and a few anti-government whackjobs understand the real nature
of constitutional law.
Classic libertarian arrogance.
Date: Sat Mar 22 19:29:13 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
"There's also the old income vs. wages argument as well. "
If by old you mean already over, yes.
"IN 1913 when the income tax was re-enacted after the Civil War tax was
repealed, it was essentially a 1% tax on the top 1%. And income was basically
defined as profit. The IRS somehow defines wages as 100% profit."
That has nothing to do with whether it is Constitutional or not.
As early as 1920, we have the Supreme Court saying this:
"'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from
both combined"
The income tax was never defined in the way you are trying to claim.
"I dare say, it is not that now, and so is not covered by the same document
that
created it. "
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and
without regard to any census or enumeration."
Income is income, the 16th Amendment clearly makes it constitutional to tax it.
"Sometimes people dismiss slippery slope arguments as fallacy. This is the very
definition of the slippery slope. The populists and socialists pushed to get
this in and finally did, and then it just kept growing and growing as more
populists and socialists molded it to what they really wanted to do.
Anyone that advocates giving up power to the government because "it's just a
little bit and it's just the rich" needs to remember this. This is how wage
slavery was born."
This is still not a Constitutional argument. It's a social or political
argument. If you think society would be better without an income tax, that's
fine. If you think we should repeal the 16th amendment to make it
unconstitutional, also fine.
If you argue that the Constitution and laws, as they are currently on the
books, do not allow an income tax, then you are delusionally wrong.
Date: Sat Mar 22 20:26:46 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Date: Sat Mar 22 19:29:13 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
"There's also the old income vs. wages argument as well. "
If by old you mean already over, yes.
*Well it's being made again, by people who putting the burden of proof on the
IRS this time. Maybe this time they'll get it right.
---
The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of
Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had
been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000
and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and
prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.
---
As early as 1920, we have the Supreme Court saying this:
"'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from
both combined"
*That's an invented justification after the fact.
"I dare say, it is not that now, and so is not covered by the same document
that created it. "
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and
without regard to any census or enumeration."
Income is income, the 16th Amendment clearly makes it constitutional to tax it.
*Then why is there a different definition of income for corporations vs.
individuals? After all, income is income. Whatever the hell that means.
"Sometimes people dismiss slippery slope arguments as fallacy. This is the very
definition of the slippery slope. The populists and socialists pushed to get
this in and finally did, and then it just kept growing and growing as more
populists and socialists molded it to what they really wanted to do.
Anyone that advocates giving up power to the government because "it's just a
little bit and it's just the rich" needs to remember this. This is how wage
slavery was born."
This is still not a Constitutional argument. It's a social or political
argument. If you think society would be better without an income tax, that's
fine. If you think we should repeal the 16th amendment to make it
unconstitutional, also fine.
If you argue that the Constitution and laws, as they are currently on the
books, do not allow an income tax, then you are delusionally wrong.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer
This guy, the court that acquitted him, and apparently the IRS since they
didn't appeal the case, all disagree with you.
Date: Sat Mar 22 20:36:05 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
Wow. Are you really so inept at this that you are presenting links that defeat
your own argument?
"Cryer did not make any of his arguments about the legality of the income tax
to the jury itself. Instead he asserted that he really did not believe that he
owed the taxes, so there was no criminal intent. According to the New Hampshire
Union Leader:
Cryer convinced jurors that he genuinely believed he was not liable for the
$73,000 in taxes the government says he owes for tax years 2000 and 2001.
Absent proof of criminal intent, the jury acquitted him.[10]
Although the jury was not convinced of Cryer's willfulness,[10] the theories he
raised in his motions for dismissal have been repeatedly rejected by the courts
(see Tax protester arguments and related articles)."
It is true that you can beat a tax evasion rap if you convince the jury that
you were stupid enough to not realize you were breaking the law.
Date: Sat Mar 22 20:43:27 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
Sorry if I'm being rude. There are issues where rational people can disagree.
And what this boils down to is that some people have moral and social arguments
against the income tax, which I disagree with but understand and respect their
rationality.
Instead of arguing those social and moral reasons, they insist on playing these
utterly ridiculous games of bad logic, poor history and repeating urban legends
they've read long after they've been debunked to pretend that a Constitutional
amendment expressly allowing for an income tax and an overwhelming pile of
court decisions confirming this.
"That's an invented justification after the fact."
So less than a decade after the amendment was passed, those evil judges who are
just out to trick and lie are redefining a common word to mean what it means.
I'm still laughing about the Cryer thing. You posted a link to the court case
of a guy who, like many others, have had it confirmed in court that they did
owe a tax, but they honestly thought that they didn't, so they were wrong but
not criminally liable.
Then you tried to use that as proof that the courts said he didn't have to pay.
Utterly silly on your part.
Date: Sat Mar 22 20:49:23 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
"The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of
Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years."
I want to really bring out this sentence you wrote, Henry, so we can show
everyone how the tax protestor lies and myths work.
"not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years."
This is false. He was not found guilty failure to file income taxes.
He was found not guilty of "willful failure to file income tax returns."
The operative word is *willful*.
The courts have confirmed that you are not criminally liable if you honestly
believed you didn't have to file, even though they also confirm that you are
wrong. You are, however, still civilly liable and will have to file the returns
and pay the taxes.
Even Mr. Cryer wasn't dumb enough to argue in court that the tax was
unconstitutional. He simply argued that he was dumb enough to believe he didn't
have to file, so there was no criminal intent with his illegal nonfiling.
Date: Sat Mar 22 20:51:47 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Did he pay the tax? Nope. Is he being forced to? Nope.
The judgment makes no mention of required recompense, and he's further suing
the IRS for improprieties in their investigation, and yet the IRS is STILL not
making any move against him.
If I were going to avoid taxes I'd sooner just move to a country that doesn't
have them.
Date: Sat Mar 22 20:57:31 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
As far as the definition of income, this is relatively simple to prove.
First, there is a principal in law that says that words in statutes have their
ordinary meaning unless otherwise define.
So what is the ordinary definition of income?
"money received, esp. on a regular basis, for work or through investments "
"1. The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in
exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as
profit from financial investments."
Those are the defintions from the dictionaries I have on hand.
The courts confirmed this specifically with regards to income in 1935:
“For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term
‘income,’ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the
amendment....”
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1935)
These arguments are considered done and well-settled:
"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the
following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal
merit and patently frivolous: ... (8) the term “income” as used in the tax
statutes is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite....”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990)."
If you are going to claim now that the court systems do not know or do not have
the authority to decide what is and is not Constitutional, then you are
essentially arguing that the entire country is illegitimate, which is beyond
the realm of mere legalities and into some level of philosophy that extends
beyond the simple question of "Is the income tax Constitutional."
It's Constitutional. If you object to it, fight to amend the Constitution or
fight to have Congress repeal it.
Date: Sat Mar 22 21:01:26 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
"The judgment makes no mention of required recompense, and he's further suing
the IRS for improprieties in their investigation, and yet the IRS is STILL not
making any move against him."
Of course the judgment makes no mention of required recompense, that has
nothing to do with the case. The case was whether he committed a crime, and he
was found not guilty by his own ignorance. Why would the judgment go beyond
that?
You are right that the IRS is probably leaving him alone because it seems as if
they did commit some illegal acts during the investigation.
But many, many people who have made the same arguments as him have been forced
to pay.
Date: Sat Mar 22 21:38:07 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
If only our government went after illegal immigrants with the same intensity
and venom.
Date: Sun Mar 23 00:31:50 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh Too
"If only our government went after illegal immigrants with the same intensity
and venom."
I'm not arguing for the morality, practicality or feasibility of the taxes.
Only their legality.
Date: Sun Mar 23 12:22:31 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Legality can change with the stroke of a pen.
Even if you're right, and I'm not saying that everything is in a row in that
regard, in a just government morality will win out.
Date: Sat Apr 5 20:59:04 2008
Sender: Dan Hilsgen
Wow....this thread I posted took an unexpected turn after I left it.
I have emerged from my tax cave and am now done with my taxes (with a VERY
healthy refund to boot). I opted for Turbo Tax Home & Business (like $75 or
something) and did it myself. Learned a few things and had only a couple of
headaches. I will be doing my taxes myself going forward. I trust myself more
to figure out something than some guy/gal that I do not know from Adam/Eve who
may or may not be qualified to do their job and who really at the end of the
day doesn't care about me.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
