User talk:Famspear/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Famspear/Archive 1, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Better late than never for the standard welcome. As you may have noticed, reading the below conversation is very difficult. The two ways people handle that are either to not ever break up someone else's comments so they stay in one piece and it's easy to see who wrote what, or to copy the signature to each individual paragraph. Then use indenting to make it clear where responses are. It is acceptable to adjust the formatting of someone elses comments as long as you don't change the intent of their words. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 19:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Income Tax of the [in the] U.S.

[On 6 Dec 2005, Famspear wrote:]

The following material was moved out of the main article as it violates the Wikipedia policy against non-neutral point of view. The material also includes several statements of opinion that do not accurately reflect the cited material, as explained below.

[On 6 Dec 2005, BB69 counter-responded :] I have put back the following material into the main article as it doesn't violate Wikipedia policy against non-neutral point of view since it is stating facts. Other material in this article arguably includes several statements of opinion that do not accurately reflect the cited material and have been left in. Perhaps we should remove the whole article for discussion line by line.

BB69 states: The "1040 Instructions" book has no reference to a requirement to file a return except on its "Privacy Act" page, where it says: "Our legal right to ask for information is IRC Sections 6001, 6011 and 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for. Your response is mandatory under these sections."

Famspear Response:

Incorrect. For example, on page 75 of the year 2004 Instructions for Form 1040, under the Privacy Act notice in column 2, there are other references to the requirement to file a return: “If you do not file a return … you may be charged penalties and be subject to criminal prosecution.” By the way, IRS forms and instructions are just that: forms and instructions. They are not the law, and as a general rule forms and instructions are not legally required to include specific references to particular statutes, regulations, or case law, etc.

BB69 [counter-]Response [on 6 Dec 2005]: Incorrect. It says "MAY" be charged, not will be. It is based on their being a liability for the proper tax. Which the instruction booklet never quotes an income tax liability. If a form and instructions are going to state misleading terms and quote and cite sections that mislead one to think they are required, then it is necessary to point that out. It is still within context, if one is going from the IRS's material.

BB69 states: If you are "liable for" a tax you must file a return; but there is not any Code Section that makes one "liable for" an income tax. If none exists, you must assume you have no such liability or consequent obligation to file.

Famspear Response:

No Code section making one liable for an income tax? Incorrect. For example, Internal Revenue Code section 1 specifically imposes the tax on the “taxable income” of individuals. Code section 11 imposes the tax on the taxable income of corporations. “Taxable income” in turn is defined in section 63. “Gross income” is defined in section 61. Exclusions from income are provided in various sections, as are deductions from gross income to arrive at “taxable income.”

• Famspear... In the event you are unaware the term “taxable income” is defined as "gross income" minus the deductions allowed by that chapter. Within the "Gross Income" definition (Code 61) a US Citizen's "salary" or "wage" is NOT defined as income, unless one is defined as an employee (per code 3401)and that ONLY pertains to "wage withholding". So there is NO "taxable income" of one's salary or wage from a non-governmental company or agency.Rawhide4u 06:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BB69 [counter-] Response [on 6 Dec 2005]: Incorrect. IRC Sec 1 imposes the on a "taxable income". If it is not taxable then you do not owe it. Code sec 11, again, imposes the tax on a "taxable income" of corporations, but not on the untaxable parts. Taxable income is NOT defined in section 63. You can not define a word by using that word, as in section 61, "Gross income is income".

BB69 states: The text of the three Code Sections that Notice identifies :

CS 6001 "every person liable for any tax imposed by this title... shall... make such returns..." and "the Secretary... may require any person, by notice served..." to file a return. However as above, there isn't any Section that makes one liable for an income tax and you must be served any notice by the Secretary.

Famspear Response:

No section that makes one liable? Incorrect. Again, Internal Revenue Code section 1 specifically imposes the tax for individuals.

• Famspear, what are you talking about? Section 1, which is under the "Tax Rate" Chapter, is about imposed tax not tax "liability". The tax is only imposed if the individual is "liable" for the tax. You constantly segue from the points.Rawhide4u 06:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Code section 11 imposes the tax for corporations. Further, if BB69 is saying that any notice must be served by the Secretary of the Treasury personally to be liable for income tax, that is false, and that is not what section 6001 says. The word “may” is not the word “must.” Here is the full text of section 6001:

“Section 6001. Notice or Regulations Requiring Records, Statements, and Special Returns. Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).”

Nothing in section 6001 says the Secretary “must” serve a notice. Indeed, the obligations imposed under that section are imposed on taxpayers and employers, not on the Secretary of the Treasury. And BB69 cites no other provision anywhere in the Constitution, a statute, a regulation, or any related case law to the effect that a person must be “served any notice by the Secretary” to be liable for Federal income tax as, indeed, there is no such provision.

BB69 [counter-]Response [on 6 Dec 2005]: Incorrect again. Section says nothing about liability and code section 11 imposes a tax only on "taxabe income", no untaxable. It is absolutely true that section 6001 says that "whenever in the judgement of the Secretary" not the IRS. That is there to give guidelines to any person that if they owe a tax or different from what they have said, then they will receive notice from the Secretary of Treasury only, and not the IRS. Any exclusion is taken as assumption that you do not have to obey any others, including the IRS. Indeed, it is the obligation of the taxpayer to decide what they owe, and the only one to refute it is the Secretary, not the IRS. That is the cited section. In fact, Famspear fails to cite any section or law that shows "liability for income taxes" as the IRC clearly states for alcohol, tobacco and firearms, probably because there is no such provision.

BB69 states: CS 6011 "when required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title... shall make a return..." but the same comment applies; there is no law to make one liable.

Famspear Response:

No law to make one liable? Again, incorrect, for the same reasons listed above. Further, the statement is blatant non-neutral POV.

• I will acknowledge that you do have a point. I think that BB69 might be a little perplexed on some of his points.Rawhide4u 06:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BB69 [counter-]Response [on 6 Dec 2005]: Incorrect, again for the same reasons cited above. Nothing is non-neutral PoV about the statement. It merely cites the statute exactly as is and makes further comment for a complete neutral true statement.

BB69 states: CS 6012 "returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by... every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount..." The code Section that defines the term "gross income" is not defined. CS 61, at first glance does seem to define "gross income". However, it does so only in terms of another term, "income" itself, thus: "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business..." In order to understand how "gross income" is defined, it must therefore be shown the Code Section that defines "income." There is none.

Famspear Response:

“It must be shown the Code Section that defines income?” Incorrect. Under the U.S. legal system, there is no law that requires that the definition of a term (“gross income”) not include a form or part of that term (“income”). BB69 is thinking of something his or her eighth grade English teacher said about proper forms of definitions. Here, we are talking about law. Further, there is no legal requirement that a legal term be defined in the statutes at all. Many terms are defined by statute (that’s a good thing), but the vast majority of words in all Federal and state statutes are not defined at all. This is the case with statutes in general, not just the tax statutes.

BB69 [counter-]Response [on 6 Dec 2005]: Incorrect again. You have to include a definition of something that is foreign if you want anyone to understand it. In fact, that was the reason for the Supreme Court cases cited, because there was confusion as to what it meant since it wasn't defined in the IRC. Apparently, Famspear thinks everyone asldfkj can be defined as saying it is asdflkj. Hope that's clear. Again, this is why it was defined in Supreme Court cases as gain and profit.

BB69 states: One other facet of CS 61: while it doesn't define "income" (and therefore doesn't actually define "gross income" either) it does tell us one thing about "income": it is an entity that is "derived from sources" such as those listed.

Famspear response:

Incorrect: Section 61 does not define “income” but it does define “gross income.” BB69 is correct, however, to the extent that gross income can be derived from the kinds or sources of income listed in section 61. However, nothing in section 61 limits “gross income” to just the kinds or sources of income listed there.

BB69 [counter-]Response [on 6 Dec 2005]: Incorrect again. Again, you cannot define "Gross income is income...". However, Famspear is correct in noticing that the gross income can be derived from the kinds of sources of income listed in section 61 as in profits from any of those sources like in an investment. Nothing says "gross income" is outside of these sources.

BB69 states: For instance, receiving a pension, and making some profits from an unincorporated business. However "income" is said there to be "derived from" pensions and "gross income derived from business" Clearly, nothing at all can ever be derived from itself. The Code must define "income", and how each of those derivations works.

Famspear Response:

Incorrect. Again, there is no requirement that the Code define “income” (although it does define “gross income” and “adjusted gross income” and “taxable income,” etc.), and there is no requirement that the Code define “how each of those derivations works.” Again, this may come as a shock to some people, but under the U.S. legal system there is no “legal requirement” that any particular term be defined in any statute, regulation, or court decision merely because it’s found in a statute, regulation or court decision. Indeed most words in most statutes (not just the tax statutes) are not defined (although more of them should be), but as a general rule that has nothing to do with legal validity of the statute. There is such a thing as a statute being “unconstitutionally vague” but no Federal income tax statute has been ruled unconstitutionally vague.

BB69 [counter-]Response [on 6 Dec 2005]: Incorrect. If the IRS is going to state that you have to pay them from a source, they have to define it for you to understand. I said nothing about it being law, but merely stated it for clarity. Again Famspear tries to make the weak argument that it defines "gross income", "adjusted gross income" and "taxable income" etc. If we don't know how each derivation works, how are we supposed to understand how each works? What would anyone do if someone said you are to pay a aasdlfkj tax and no one knew what that was? Well, why not ignore it because you aren't even sure what it is because it wasn't defined. It seems that the IRC was fine in defining other words under Section 61, why not income? Something to ask yourself.

BB69 states: The opinion of the Supreme Court in US v Ballard in 1976:

"The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code."

Famspear Response:

Basically correct! The word “income” itself (as opposed to “gross income”) is not defined in section 61. But BB69 cites no legal authority for the position that the word “income” must be defined in the statute – as, indeed, there is no such rule, as explained above. [Note added by Famspear on 11 Dec. 2005: The opinion in the case of United States v. Ballard was not by the U.S. Supreme Court; see explanation in separate section.]

BB69 [counter-]Response [on 6 Dec 2005]: Again, it's not about legal authority to define, but if you want someone to understand what they are to pay, then you better define it. Forget rules. How about common sense.

BB69 states: You look to the courts for a definition and even the Supreme Court to define such a critically important term, would seem to be making law, which of course courts cannot do - Article 1 of the US Constitution reserves that power to Congress alone.

Famspear Response:

False: As few non-lawyers realize, and as every law student learns in the first semester of law school, U.S. courts literally make new law every day that courts are in session, and have always done so since the founding of the nation and from before -- when we were thirteen English colonies. Article I does reserve the legislative power to Congress. However, the U.S. legal system is based on something called the English common law system, which is primarily (though not exclusively) judge-made law. For example, the U.S. Constitution specifically requires U.S. courts to follow the common law when re-examining jury findings (see the Seventh Amendment). This has always been a major paradox of the U.S. legal system: One says that in theory the legislature makes the law, the executive enforces the law, and the judiciary only interprets the law. Judges should exercise “judicial restraint.” And that axiom is correct -- but only up to a point. A large part of U.S. law is and always has been “case law” (“judge-made law”). Indeed the U.S. legal system has a whole set of rules that judges use to determine how much “law making” or “legislating from the bench” they will do in given situations. As a society the U.S. populace is still arguing about it today – it’s in the news each time the President nominates someone to serve on the Supreme Court, for example. At one time in England most of the criminal law, property law, and contract law, etc., was judge-made law. Tort law (personal injury and property damages) was also judge-made – even before it was called “tort law.” The English judges at one time were allowed to make up the criminal law more or less “as they went along.” Imagine how that felt if you were a defendant! That is why the U.S. Constitution includes a “no ex post facto law” clause. Of course, there were always some statutes, even back to the 1500s or before, but the so-called “Codification Movement” (to put more of the basic U.S. judge-made law into the form of statutes enacted by legislatures) did not really get going in earnest until the 1800s. One of the best definitions of law ever propounded was, if I recall, from Professor John Neibel, former Dean of the College of Law at the University of Houston, whose working definition of “law” was roughly as follows (I am paraphrasing from memory): “The law is what a given judge does to you on a given day in a given court room.”

BB69 [counter-]Response [on 6 Dec 2005]:

False. Famspear forgot to mention that an old law has to be overturned in order for it to be null and void. All my cited cases have not been overturned. [Famspear comment on 11 Dec. 2005: I suspect you have no idea whether any of your cases have been overturned, and that you have no way to check them because you do not know how to use legal materials to detemine the status of cases. It appears you have been copying and pasting materials from tax protester web sites. Not only have you cited a quote falsely attributed to the Court in Lucas v. Earl (a quote that was actually from the taxpayer's brief, not part of the Court's decision), you have cited many cases that are not even Federal income tax cases and do not stand for the propositions you are pushing. Not a single one of the cases you cite includes a ruling by a court that supports a tax protester position.] [BB69 comment on 14 Dec. 2005] I can see you never stated whether any of the cases were overturned. The statement was still made in the case. Also, Famspear even admits and points out the illegal action of making law in courts when it is only reserved for Congress. This shows how blatantly illegal some courts will act at times. [Famspear comment on 11 Dec. 2005: Courts are not acting illegally when they decide cases put before them. That's the job of the courts in our legal system.] ''[BB69 comment on 14 Dec.2005] A cour is acting illegally if they will not let the Constitution or IRC be entered into evidence or let the jury see the law. Look up the cases of Joe Bannister and Irwin Schiff and show me where the judge points to where the law is. He turned down the juries request to see it stating that it would cause "problems". I have reliable witnesses that were at the trial and can all verify this. Decisions can be made based on previous court decision, but that doesn't mean it over turns the Constitution or any laws in place. Famspears last statement is telling that he is more than willing to go along with whateve any Judge tells you is law instead of going by what is not there or what is already there. [Famspear response on 11 Dec. 2005: Yes, what I am saying is that in a dispute that is brought into court, I will not "go by what is not there or what is already there" as you put it. I will follow the law. Under the U.S. legal system, when parties go to court, what the judge says is the law IS the law, not what BB69 says. That's our legal system. It may not be the system BB69 likes, but it is the system. Law is not determined by BB69. We have a constitution and statutes and common law and, under our legal system, it is now the case and has always been the case that when people get into a dispute about what the constitution or a statute or a provision of common law means and they go to court, the law and how it is to be applied is properly determined in that court -- by the judge. What I have been describing to you is our system, and I have taken an oath to support it.]'[BB69 counter response on 14 Dec. 2005] Apparently you're willing to go against the law based on who says it and have admitted it. The judge doesn't always quote sources. They sometimes just say what they THINK the law is and that is unlawful and you support that.

BB69 continued:] BB69 states: However, one such definition was made, by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Merchants' Loan & Trust Co v Smietanka: "...there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word ['income'] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."

The 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act placed an excise tax upon corporate profits.

Merchants' Loan says that "income" is defined as "corporate profit" and that certainly makes sense of Code Section 61, for such profits can indeed be "derived from" the sources there listed. Not being a corporation, however, people have no such income; and so (on the basis of that Supreme Court opinion) CS 6012 doesn't require one to file a tax return.

Famspear Response:

False, and extremely misleading. As explained below, in the case in question, the Court used among other things a statute called The Corporation Excise Tax Act (which the Court pointed out was not even an income tax law) to help determine the scope of the term “income” for purposes of the 1916 Revenue Act – which was an income tax law. Nowhere did the Court rule that “income” under the 1916 Revenue Act consisted only of “corporate profits.” In fact, corporate profits, corporate revenues, corporate expenses, etc., were not even discussed. The term “corporate profit” does not even appear in the Court’s decision. Not only did the Court not rule that people who are not corporations “have no such income,” the issue was not even presented to the Court in the case. The Court’s decision is no legal basis for any argument that section 6012 of the current code does not require one to file a return – another issue that was not even present in the case.

The case was Merchants’ Loan & Trust Company, as Trustee of the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error v. Julius F. Smietanka, formerly United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of the State of Illinois, 255 U.S. 509, 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) par. 42 (1921). (I am using the full case name here rather than the case name in “USOC” or “Harvard Blue Book” format to help illustrate for persons not familiar with legal citations that the company called “Merchants’ Loan & Trust Company” was involved only as the trustee of the estate, not as a “corporate” taxpayer on its own behalf.) The case involved a gain realized by the “Estate of Arthur Ryerson” on a sale of corporate stock (of a corporation called “Joseph T. Ryerson & Son”) taxable to the estate, not the definition or taxation of “corporate profits” of “Merchants’ Loan” or “Joseph T. Ryerson & Son” or any other corporation. The estate had paid an income tax and the trustee, on behalf of the estate, was suing for a refund of that tax. One of the theories the trustee argued was that that the gain on the stock sale was not "income" to the estate under the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case dealt with a predecessor to Internal Revenue Code section 61, which was section 2(a) of a Revenue Act enacted in 1916. Under that statute, “income” included "gains, profits and income derived from . . . sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property . . . or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever."

Regarding the word “income,” the Supreme Court stated: “The question is one of definition and the answer to it may be found in recent decisions of this Court.” The Court went on to say: “The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 [ . . .], was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word "income" was so necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as "The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." [ . . . ] (citations omitted). The Court said: “The use made of this definition of income in the decision of case arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, and under the Income Tax Acts is, we think decisive of the case before us.” The Court further said: “It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar [i.e., the Merchants’ Loan case] if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Company v. Lowe [ . . . ], where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. [ . . . T]here would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.” The Court went on: “In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. [ . . . W]e continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment [. . .] it is palpable that it was a "gain or profit" [ . . .] and thereby became that "realized gain" which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income within the meaning of the constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress [ . . .]” In short, the Court ruled that the gain on the sale of corporate stock by an estate was taxable as part of the “income” of that estate under the tax statute and the Sixteenth Amendment. Famspear 04:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

BB69 Response [additional BB69 counter-response on 6 Dec 2005]:

Famspears opinion that it is misleading is false, but the cited court case is true and for exactly as posted" "income” included "gains, profits and income derived from . . . sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property . . . or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever." Just as I have mentioned above and as I mentioned above, the rest of the court case goes on to say that even though this was not law it needed to be defined and the court is fine with this meaning of income for 1913 to mean the same as it did in 1909, "any gain DERIVED" from these sources.

--bb69 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)BB69

[see Famspear’s counter-counter response on 6 Dec 2005, on User talk page for BB69.]

[BB69'S counter-counter-counter response to Famspear's on BB69'S talk page]

Thank you for writing back. I look forward to viewing the brackets you have placed to make it easy to see responses. If found valuable, I may want to do that to my own page.

To cover your assertion that my point is to persuade people that the Income Tax law is invalid, that is incorrect. I am showing people the that Income Tax law as written is correct, but that it is misapplied. Unless you can show me differently, I don't see how creating a seperate page on Income tax to assert my points would be of much use since the idea is that when someone puts in "Income Tax" or "Income Tax in the United States" that they get my information, unless I can re-direct people from the current article using those same keywords.

I understand what you mean about trying to show defects in my argument in your response. That is how I expect discussions to go. As you saw, (on your talk page)I have show the defects in your arguments to mine. Again, I agree, this is not about BB69 being right and Famspear being wrong, but merely stating the facts and showing sources. I'm going to take the chance that I can convince other Wikipedia users that what I am showing will lead them to the answer that the Income tax is misapplied no matter what some Judges rule. So far, there have been no users who have been able to defeat me in any of my material and I suspect it will continue to be so since the material I am citing is law, not opinion. I am sure, once the users get over their feeling of being mis-led all these years, that they will admit to it. The bottom line is that we all see this and do something about it. I hope that many people will and some attorneys will as well. It has already started and it's not going to stop. Again, putting up my own user page with my information misses the point of having someone get to it who is curious about "Income Tax" and "Income Tax in the United States" when it doesn't get to my page.

You can defeat the US Income tax system using the information I post as a start and I have done it myself for five years. I am only one of thousands that are already doing this legally.BB69 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)BB69

User:BB69 (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)BB69 response 9 December 2005

Thank you for writing back. I look forward to viewing the brackets you have placed to make it easy to see responses. If found valuable, I may want to do that to my own page.

To cover your assertion that my point is to persuade people that the Income Tax law is invalid, that is incorrect. I am showing people the that Income Tax law as written is correct, but that it is misapplied.

[Famspear responds]

“Trying to show people” that the income tax law is “misapplied” is not appropriate in the Wikipedia article on the income tax. This is an encyclopedia, and the main articles area is not a discussion forum or a place to “try to show people” something like that. Regardless of whether you call it an attempt to "persuade people” or “trying to show people,” it’s not appropriate in the main articles area.

[BB69 responds] What do you think the Wikipedia article on income tax is? It is trying to show people that it is applied correctly. So, your statement would also apply that the article is the incorrect forum as well. You asked what my point was and I told you. As far as the right forum, the Article is the best forum to put in the facts and cases, which is what I have done and my addition.

[BB69 says:] Unless you can show me differently, I don't see how creating a seperate [separate] page on Income tax to assert my points would be of much use since the idea is that when someone puts in "Income Tax" or "Income Tax in the United States" that they get my information, unless I can re-direct people from the current article using those same keywords.

[Famspear responds:]

Again, the articles area of Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to “assert your points.” You are inappropriately trying to use Wikipedia as a cyberspace soapbox to “try to show people” that the income tax law is “misapplied” as you put it. The “idea” is not supposed to be that when someone puts in “Income Tax”, etc., they “get your information.”

[BB69 response:] Again, the articles area of the Wikipedia is the appropriate place to put in facts. It is not about asserting points, unless you think the whole article is asserting a point. All articles would be called a soapbox by your definition because they all assert a point. Yes, the idea is that when someone puts in "Income Tax" they get my article because I am publishing it just like any other article.

[BB69 says:] I understand what you mean about trying to show defects in my argument in your response. That is how I expect discussions to go. As you saw, (on your talk page)I have show [shown] the defects in your arguments to mine.

[Famspear responds:]

No, sorry, I did not see any “defects” in my “argument.”

[BB69 responds:] Ok, they had defects.

[BB69 continues:] Again, I agree, this is not about BB69 being right and Famspear being wrong, but merely stating the facts and showing sources. I'm going to take the chance that I can convince other Wikipedia users that what I am showing will lead them to the answer that the Income tax is misapplied no matter what some Judges rule.

[Famspear responds:]

The articles area of Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for you “take the chance” to “convince” other users that what you are “showing” will “lead them to the answer.” Trying to “convince” other users is the same as trying to persuade them that your belief about the income tax is correct, which is the same as “trying to show people” that the income tax is “misapplied.” This is not appropriate in Wikipedia.

[BB69 responds] Again, this is not about the article, but about answering your question. The article is still the right place to make additions, just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make them wrong. Stop trying to place your opinion over the facts.

[BB69 continues:] So far, there have been no users who have been able to defeat me in any of my material and I suspect it will continue to be so since the material I am citing is law, not opinion.

[Famspear responds:]

Sorry, but I doubt if any users or editors lend any credibility at all to your material. Virtually everything you have said about the income tax has been “defeated,” and this will “continue to be so” since your materials are not “law” but only your own opinion.

[BB69 responds] Yes, that is true. None of the editors or users have been able to lend credibility at all yet. None of anything I have said about the income tax has been defeated and it will continue to be that way since all my materials are law and yours are your opinion.

[BB69 says:] I am sure, once the users get over their feeling of being mis-led all these years, that they will admit to it. The bottom line is that we all see this and do something about it. I hope that many people will and some attorneys will as well. It has already started and it's not going to stop.

[Famspear responds:]

No, but I understand that you “feel” that you have been “misled.” In psychology, there is a term called “transference.” One working definition of transference is “the inappropriate repetition, in the present, of some aspect of a relationship that was important in the subject’s past.” I invite you to do some reading on the term “transference.” Also, you certainly have been misled by the tax protester nonsense you have been reading.

[BB69 responds] I understand you trying to sluff your ignorance off as the transference of mine. I can clearly see you are still in denial. Look that up. I am the one paying attention to the law. It is now you who have been shown and refuse to believe and even want to be unconstitutional and for that you should feel bad about yourself.

[BB69 writes:] Again, putting up my own user page with my information misses the point of having someone get to it who is curious about "Income Tax" and "Income Tax in the United States" when it doesn't get to my page.

[Famspear responds:]

The point is that it’s inappropriate for you to be trying to use Wikipedia to have “someone get to” your “information” about the income tax. You can certainly set up your own web site for this kind of thing. Wikipedia is not the place to do that.

[BB69 responds] Again, it's not inappropriate to publish facts in an article. It's the point.

[BB69 says:] You can defeat the US Income tax system using the information I post as a start and I have done it myself for five years. I am only one of thousands that are already doing this legally.

[Famspear responds:]

Wikipedia articles are not the appropriate place to put information to help people try to “defeat the US Income tax system” as you put it. And nobody is doing it legally – not in the ways you are thinking. If you think you are doing it legally, why not contact the local office of the Internal Revenue Service, ask for the Special Agent in charge of the Criminal Investigation unit, and give him or her all the facts of your case?

[BB69 responds] Again, this is not about the article, this is about answering your question as to the information I have published not being able to help anyone defeat the IRS and that is incorrect. Yes, Famspear, everyone is doing it legally, because that is the law. I have already contacted the IRS and told them what I am doing and to show me the law that makes me liable and know what? They haven't written me back in 5 years and shown me the law. Know why? Because it doesn't exist, my friend. If the IRS can't show me where it is, what chance is there of you or any of your cohorts being able to do so? Get it?

[BB69 says:] Again, I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that your belief is that Income Taxes are applied correctly. I am only posting from what I read and from what I read it is very clear that my position is correct.

[Famspear responds:]

Aren't you pleased we're able to perform this exercise without getting into a “back and forth” argument about the defects or lack of defects in your arguments? This discussion was about the fact that you are using the wrong "forum" to make your arguments. By the way, whatever it is you've been reading, you might want to consider throwing it away. Famspear 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[BB69 response]

[BB69 responds] This has been fine to discuss and not base it on your lack of facts and defects in your argument. I have answered your assumptions about it being the wrong forum. I'm glad I could show you that it is the correct forum. You might want to start paying attention the constitution and everything I'm making available to you and stop living in denial. User:BB69 (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)BB69

Famspear Response 11 Dec. 2005 Hmmmmm. Those last four words: "stop living in denial." Considering everything you have written, how appropriate that you should use those words! Famspear 23:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

BB69 response 12 Dec. 2005 That's nice for a "I'm rubber your glue" response Famspear, but doesn't hold up here.[BB69]] (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)BB69