| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Aug 2005 : 00:12:24
|
"In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver,
and his idols of gold, which they made [each one]
for himself to worship, to the moles and to the
bats..." |
Edited by - Manuel on 15 Aug 2005 00:14:47 |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2005 : 07:18:56
|
| Even on this fine forum, I am impressed with the quality of articulation and refined wisdom expressed in the last couple Pages. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2005 : 11:05:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Even on this fine forum, I am impressed with the quality of articulation and refined wisdom expressed in the last couple Pages.
Here's the sum total of the situation:
A CORP/VENDOR is required to have a license to "collect and remit" CONSUMER TAXES to the STATE when it SELLS it's CONSUMER GOODS or SERVICES. The CORP/VENDOR acts as an AGENT for the REVENUE DEPT in this ACTIVITY. The CORP/VENDOR SELLS it's GOODS to CONSUMER and collects the required TAX at point of SALE from the CONSUMER. Remember, the CORP/VENDOR must be licensed by the STATE to act as AGENT in collecting these obligatory TAXES. This transaction is a BUY/SELL agreement in COMMERCE between the two PARTIES and, in some cases, is open to negotiation. In most cases the CONSUMER PAYS the CONSUMER TAX in the BUY/SELL agreement between the CORP/VENDOR. In that context, in that phase of the BUY/SELL TRANSACTION, the CONSUMER is the TAXPAYER and tenders the amount of TAX DUE. This fits perfectly with the BLACK'S LAW, American Heritage Dictionary as well as definition of TAXPAYER in 26 U.S.C. §1313 (b). The CORP/VENDOR must then remit the CONSUMER TAXES it collected to the STATE. The CORP/VENDOR, in this phase of the transaction, is also considered a TAXPAYER by the same definitions listed above. Each step of the transaction, by ALL parties, is an act of COMMERCE.
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 15 Aug 2005 11:07:41 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2005 : 14:24:23
|
Found this:
California Revenue and Taxation Code (1970):
6052 Collection by retailer from consumer. The tax hereby imposed shall be collected by the retailer from the consumer in so far as it can be done.
Once again we see that the RETAILER is acting as the AGENT in collecting SALES TAX. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2005 : 16:53:11
|
Greetings and salutations everyone:
Peace be unto the house.
Just got in from working and read all the posts here and will respond as time permits. We will attempt to clean up the mess, but in the mean time please believe that I do wish you and yours, good health, lasting peace and the prosperty you desire, brother Steven. I believe it is only a question of semantics and can all be cleared up in a hospitable manner.
Until then,
brother Robert:
P.S. Perhaps Admin would be kind enough to fix the page-width-problem to make things easier here. Thanks for all your efforts.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2005 : 17:05:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations everyone:
Peace be unto the house.
Just got in from working and read all the posts here and will respond as time permits. We will attempt to clean up the mess, but in the mean time please believe that I do wish you and yours, good health, lasting peace and the prosperty you desire, brother Steven. I believe it is only a question of semantics and can all be cleared up in a hospitable manner.
Until then,
brother Robert:
P.S. Perhaps Admin would be kind enough to fix the page-width-problem to make things easier here. Thanks for all your efforts.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Thanks! I must admit I took your last e-mail to be a bit hostile and it got me a bit upset. I was not slandering you what-so-ever. I was just trying to outline the chain of events in BUY/SELL agreement, not trying to say you were a "whore for the GOVT". Let's start over.
Looking forward to having a peaceful discussion on this item.
Best to all,
Steve |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2005 : 21:25:20
|
Greetings brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house; (“tricky punctuation”  ) and we mean it.
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Though you seem right at home libeling, er-r-r labeling a Stranger who pays a sales tax whilst sojourning in this place, as a [U.S.] TAXPAYER, it would seem that your GOVERNMENT and its COURTS are not so cavalier. Here are two court decisions exemplifying what we have just stated.
Batkol: Then, to add to this sophistry you spin, you try to insult me by accusing me of libel.
oneisraelite: No, no…it was a typo and I corrected it immediately (See original post). Sorry, my sardonic humor obviously leaves something to be desired. Please accept my humble apologies for offending you, brother Steven. We misunderstood you to be saying that because of that one transaction, the Stranger had become a 14th Amendment subject/citizen, i.e. a card-carrying TAXPAYER; apparently you were not.
Batkol: Here you are again trying to make a dog into a horse.
oneisraelite: I mentioned semantics, therein we believe, may lie our differences. Your definition of taxpayer is a general definition and by that general definition you are correct, our Stranger did pay a tax, thus he is a tax payer. In fact, the Stranger was not given a receipt at all in our scenario and thus truly did not know that he had paid a tax, but by your general definition he is STILL a tax payer.
This just in from a tax case that was, within the last few days, won in another place...
Some highlights from the hearing:
Whilst wrangling with the judge over the meaning of the terms used in the [tax] statute, the Crown Prosecutor said, "I believe this word should be given its ordinary and usual meaning." To which the judge replied, "This is tax law. Nothing is ordinary or usual." [Emphasis added]
However, that act in and of itself, did not make him a PERSON, a creation of the CORPORATION. Only the creations of the CORPORATION lawfully owe their master, the CORPORATION taxes.
Render unto [the] caesar what is [the] caesar’s.
Strangers, i.e. citizens of other nations, such as the commonwealth of Yisra’el, do not owe any taxes to the corporation U.S.A., there is no "demand" that they pay any taxes, “Therefore the children are exempt (HNV)”, but they may freely choose (consent) to pay a sales tax (or any other), if they so desire.
All things Lawful are mine, but not all things are expedient (advantageous).
Where we draw the line has been brought forth by Surveyor (brother Clarence:)
Originally posted by Surveyor
”It is the Master to whom we give our allegiance that we serve.”
“But I would say taking their benefits and oaths that give them the jurisdiction to judge what is truth is overstepping the bounds.”
oneisraelite: Well said, brother Clarence! And I believe that pledging allegiance is the only way a Stranger can become a NATURALIZED CITIZEN of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and become legally liable for the taxes thereof.
P.S. Thank you Admin for fixing the width problem; much appreciated.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 16 Aug 2005 08:16:03 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2005 : 09:59:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
[size=2][font=Book Antiqua]Greetings brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house; (“tricky punctuation” ) and we mean it.
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Though you seem right at home libeling, er-r-r labeling a Stranger who pays a sales tax whilst sojourning in this place, as a [U.S.] TAXPAYER, it would seem that your GOVERNMENT and its COURTS are not so cavalier. Here are two court decisions exemplifying what we have just stated.
Batkol: Then, to add to this sophistry you spin, you try to insult me by accusing me of libel.
oneisraelite: No, no…it was a typo and I corrected it immediately (See original post). Sorry, my sardonic humor obviously leaves something to be desired. Please accept my humble apologies for offending you, brother Steven. We misunderstood you to be saying that because of that one transaction, the Stranger had become a 14th Amendment subject/citizen, i.e. a card-carrying TAXPAYER; apparently you were not.
Thank you for clearing this up. You have taken a load off my shoulders. I also apologise for my part. I was certainly NOT saying that one who pays a SALES TAX is a 14th Amendment Citizen. I was just saying that, in the context of a BUY/SELL agreement between the CONSUMER and VENDOR, the VEDOR acts as an AGENT for the STATE (or which-ever-ENTITY) in collecting the TAX at point of PURCHASE. I was also saying later that the Black's LAW definition of TAXPAYER, as well as definition of TAXPAYER in 26 U.S.C. §1313 (b, does account for this STATUS, in that particular transaction.
quote:
Batkol: Here you are again trying to make a dog into a horse.
oneisraelite: I mentioned semantics, therein we believe, may lie our differences. Your definition of taxpayer is a general definition and by that general definition you are correct, our Stranger did pay a tax, thus he is a tax payer. In fact, the Stranger was not given a receipt at all in our scenario and thus truly did not know that he had paid a tax, but by your general definition he is STILL a tax payer.
Upon closer examination of the Black's Law as well as definition of TAXPAYER in 26 U.S.C. §1313(b) the CONSUMER would still be considered a TAXPAYER, in the context of a BUY/SELL agreement between himself and the VENDOR. The VENDOR is licensed to "collect and remit" the Tax. After that transaction, the VENDOR (acting as AGENT for the STATE) is responsible for passing along the TAX that he is licensed to collect. In that particular phase of the transaction (to which we are NOT party to) the VENDOR becomes a TAXPAYER. I believe one website called it "the TAX chain".
quote:
This just in from a tax case that was, within the last few days, won in another place...
Some highlights from the hearing:
Whilst wrangling with the judge over the meaning of the terms used in the [tax] statute, the Crown Prosecutor said, "I believe this word should be given its ordinary and usual meaning." To which the judge replied, "This is tax law. Nothing is ordinary or usual." [Emphasis added]
However, that act in and of itself, did not make him a PERSON, a creation of the CORPORATION. Only the creations of the CORPORATION lawfully owe their master, the CORPORATION taxes.
Render unto [the] caesar what is [the] caesar’s.
What is the context of this case? Was it an IRS INCOME TAX case? If so, then it would not have any bearing on a BUY/SELL agreement made in RETAIL COMMERCE. That's another animal and the definitions of TAXPAYER in both Black's Law and 26 U.S.C. §1313(b) would apply to the CONSUMER paying the CONSUMER TAX, during that isolated phase of the BUY/SELL agreement struck between VENDOR and CONSUMER. Remember, the VENDOR is acting as an AGENT for the STATE in "collecting and remiting" the TAX.
From US Department of the Treasury
Consumer Tax
A consumer tax system taxes the retail sale. The vendor at a store collects the tax from the buyer and then sends the tax money to the state. For example, if you bought a record album, you would pay a tax in addition to the record price.
Combination
A combination vendor-consumer system taxes the vendor (the owner of the record store) who then is required to pass the tax on to the consumer (the person who buys the record). From the standpoint of the consumer, a combination vendor-consumer sales tax appears identical to a consumer sales tax. The consumer pays a tax in addition to the sale price.
The CONSUMER, during the phase of BUYING the GOODS, is "one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution toward its support." The VENDOR is licensed to "collect and remit" this TAX for the STATE.
quote:
Strangers, i.e. citizens of other nations, such as the commonwealth of Yisra’el, do not owe any taxes to the corporation U.S.A., there is no "demand" that they pay any taxes, “Therefore the children are exempt (HNV)”, but they may freely choose (consent) to pay a sales tax (or any other), if they so desire.
Strangers, dog catchers, moral sentient beings, moms and dads, whoever, do OWE taxes to the US CORP when they PURCHASE GOODS and SERVICES during that particular transaction.... unless they negotiate otherwise during the SALE. After the TAX has been 'collected' the VENDOR then becomes a TAXPAYER who is responsible in 'remitting' the obligatory TAX which they are licensed to collect to the STATE.. Hence the phrase "tax chain".
During that transaction one becomes party to an act in commerce wherein the VENDOR acts as an AGENT who 'collects and remits' for the US CORP. This paying of the TAX may very well put whoever pays the TAX into the STATUS of a PERSON during that transaction. I am going to look into that last part and report back.
Pece to all,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 16 Aug 2005 10:03:49 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2005 : 10:30:03
|
| Try applying for waiver the tax. After a bunch of items are rung up, refuse to pay the tax. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2005 : 12:19:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Try applying for waiver the tax. After a bunch of items are rung up, refuse to pay the tax.
That would be a perfect soloution. Aside from the FRN issue, it would be a great way of avoiding becoming a TAXPAYER in the transaction.
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2005 : 19:22:59
|
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto you and yours.
We would like to ask one more favor of you…
[Originally posted by Batkol]
Yet, you have no problem enjoying the benefits of CONTRACTS as long as other's do it for you. So much for causing your "brother not to sin".
We would ask that either you take back, what we perceive to be a false accusation, or that you produce evidence that we have ever caused a fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra’el to sin by asking them to enter into a contract on our behalf.
We might ask a citizen of a foreign nation we are sojourning in to lie to his or her 'elohiym/god (ruler) for us but surely you would not say that we caused him or her to sin against Yahuwah any more than you would say Joshua’s spies caused Rehab to sin against Yahuwah, would you? In fact, Rehab was rewarded by Yahuwah for lying to her 'elohiym/god’s agents for the sake of the Yisra’elites (fellowcitizens of Yisra’el). This is second witnessed in the New Covenant [Testament] when it says that those who help the fellowcitizens of Yisra’el will be rewarded.
We thank you for your time and attention to this matter, brother Steven.
Next!
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the word obliged as opposed to choosing to pay a sales tax.
Owe, v.t. o. [Gr., Eng. own.] 1. To be indebted; to be obliged or bound to pay. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Obligated, pp. Bound by contract or promise. (Ibid.)
We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it, just as brother Clarence stated, while the buyer (Stranger) who is not indebted (grateful to the benefactor), and because he is a stranger to the contract or promise, is not obligated (bound) to pay it and may choose to walk away from the purchase or barter with the seller regarding its payment with no negative legal consequence, while the licensed SELLER may not legally choose not to add it to the price of his goods or legally refuse to pay it to the STATE because HE is bound by contract and promise. He may, as brother Clarence pointed out, choose to illegally “eat it” at the time of the sale, but presuming that he his not going to totally cheat his 'elohiym/god, the STATE, he will have to pay it himself because he is obligated, that is to say, bound by contract and promise, to do so.
Though you are correct, in the general sense, the Stranger to the covenant(s) who pays a tax, knowingly or unknowingly, is a taxpayer, it would be very dangerous for him to answer to this appellation, since it sounds exactly like the STATUTORILY created TAXPAYER, represented here as a fiction by its all-caps depiction. All who buy are buyers, but not all buyers are the legally created fictions called, BUYERS. Watch this from Black’s Law Dictionary – Abridged Sixth Edition, page 138.
Buyer. One who buys; (“tricky punctuation”) …a person who buys …
There are two kinds of buyers, one who buys refers to living beings, whereas a person who buys refers to statutorily created fictions.
To eliminate confusion, it might be better to write, all who pay taxes are tax payers (two words) or tax-payers (hyphenated) and label all the legally created fictions, TAXPAYERS in all caps. This may help to eliminate some confusion due to semantics.
semantics n.pl. 1 the branch of linguistics concerned with the nature, the structure, and the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning 3 the relationships between signs and symbols and the concepts, feelings, etc. associated with them in the minds of the their interpreters – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition, page 1219
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 16 Aug 2005 19:35:54 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2005 : 08:39:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto you and yours.
We would like to ask one more favor of you…
[Originally posted by Batkol]
Yet, you have no problem enjoying the benefits of CONTRACTS as long as other's do it for you. So much for causing your "brother not to sin".
We would ask that either you take back, what we perceive to be a false accusation, or that you produce evidence that we have ever caused a fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra’el to sin by asking them to enter into a contract on our behalf.
We might ask a citizen of a foreign nation we are sojourning in to lie to his or her 'elohiym/god (ruler) for us but surely you would not say that we caused him or her to sin against Yahuwah any more than you would say Joshua’s spies caused Rehab to sin against Yahuwah, would you? In fact, Rehab was rewarded by Yahuwah for lying to her 'elohiym/god’s agents for the sake of the Yisra’elites (fellowcitizens of Yisra’el). This is second witnessed in the New Covenant [Testament] when it says that those who help the fellowcitizens of Yisra’el will be rewarded.
We thank you for your time and attention to this matter, brother Steven.
Next!
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the word obliged as opposed to choosing to pay a sales tax.
Owe, v.t. o. [Gr., Eng. own.] 1. To be indebted; to be obliged or bound to pay. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Obligated, pp. Bound by contract or promise. (Ibid.)
We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it, just as brother Clarence stated, while the buyer (Stranger) who is not indebted (grateful to the benefactor), and because he is a stranger to the contract or promise, is not obligated (bound) to pay it and may choose to walk away from the purchase or barter with the seller regarding its payment with no negative legal consequence, while the licensed SELLER may not legally choose not to add it to the price of his goods or legally refuse to pay it to the STATE because HE is bound by contract and promise. He may, as brother Clarence pointed out, choose to illegally “eat it” at the time of the sale, but presuming that he his not going to totally cheat his 'elohiym/god, the STATE, he will have to pay it himself because he is obligated, that is to say, bound by contract and promise, to do so.
Though you are correct, in the general sense, the Stranger to the covenant(s) who pays a tax, knowingly or unknowingly, is a taxpayer, it would be very dangerous for him to answer to this appellation, since it sounds exactly like the STATUTORILY created TAXPAYER, represented here as a fiction by its all-caps depiction. All who buy are buyers, but not all buyers are the legally created fictions called, BUYERS. Watch this from Black’s Law Dictionary – Abridged Sixth Edition, page 138.
Buyer. One who buys; (“tricky punctuation”) …a person who buys …
There are two kinds of buyers, one who buys refers to living beings, whereas a person who buys refers to statutorily created fictions.
To eliminate confusion, it might be better to write, all who pay taxes are tax payers (two words) or tax-payers (hyphenated) and label all the legally created fictions, TAXPAYERS in all caps. This may help to eliminate some confusion due to semantics.
semantics n.pl. 1 the branch of linguistics concerned with the nature, the structure, and the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning 3 the relationships between signs and symbols and the concepts, feelings, etc. associated with them in the minds of the their interpreters – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition, page 1219
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
I have taken care of your request. I will respond the the rest of the post later when I have time to give it the time it deserves.
Peace to all!
Steve |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2005 : 08:47:38
|
quote:
To eliminate confusion, it might be better to write, all who pay taxes are tax payers (two words) or tax-payers (hyphenated) and label all the legally created fictions, TAXPAYERS in all caps. This may help to eliminate some confusion due to semantics.
I was thinking it would be good to clarify that same point. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2005 : 18:55:21
|
quote:
brother Robert said: We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it
Let's focus on "collect". Collect from who? The CONSUMER. If there is a tax to be "collected" then there is an obligation for the CONSUMER to pay it, unless a different deal can be negotiated. The VENDOR is licensed as an AGENT of the STATE to collect the TAX from the PURCHASER. This is well established. The CONSUMER who pays the TAX during the transaction between himself and the VENDOR would be a TAXPAYER as defined in Black's Law as well as the TAXPAYER definition in 26 U.S.C. §1313(b). . After the fact, once the TAX has been collected, then the VENDOR also is considered a TAXPAYER in that it must 'remit' what it collected. So we have two TAXPAYERS. Also, the definition of TAXPAYER in Black's Law, is not limited to the first clause in the definition which speaks of INCOME TAX. When the semi-colon exists in the sentence it separates two clauses. In actuality, two clauses in a sentence is like two separate sentences. The second part of the sentence, after the semi-colon can, stand on it's own. That's the tricky punctuation. There's the CONSUMER TAXPAYER, after the semi-colon. Understanding that, we have one definition of TAXPAYER in relation to INCOME TAX, then we have another definition that can be applied generally in the second clause. Having said that, I think it would be quite easy to see the party who performs the role of CONSUMER, during that COMMERCIAL transaction, as a PERSON once he accepts the BUY/SELL agreement which includes a TAX paid to the AGENT. If the man walks away and refuses to enter into the BUY/SELL agreement, then no deal was made, no TAX was paid, and the man did not assume the role as TAXPAYER or PERSON during that transction. If he accepts the terms, then the man becomes a CONSUMER, TAXPAYER, and PERSON for that particular transaction. He has become part of the 'TAX chain'.
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 17 Aug 2005 19:11:13 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2005 : 05:19:38
|
quote:
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the word obliged as opposed to choosing to pay a sales tax.
Owe, v.t. o. [Gr., Eng. own.] 1. To be indebted; to be obliged or bound to pay. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Obligated, pp. Bound by contract or promise. (Ibid.)
We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it, just as brother Clarence stated, while the buyer (Stranger) who is not indebted (grateful to the benefactor), and because he is a stranger to the contract or promise, is not obligated (bound) to pay it and may choose to walk away from the purchase or barter with the seller regarding its payment with no negative legal consequence, while the licensed SELLER may not legally choose not to add it to the price of his goods or legally refuse to pay it to the STATE because HE is bound by contract and promise. He may, as brother Clarence pointed out, choose to illegally “eat it” at the time of the sale, but presuming that he his not going to totally cheat his 'elohiym/god, the STATE, he will have to pay it himself because he is obligated, that is to say, bound by contract and promise, to do so.
I wanted to focus on this above statement now that I have a few minutes. The only "choosing" being done by the 'stranger' is whether or not to enter into COMMERCE with the VENDOR. Once the choice is made to enter into such a transaction, the stranger becomes a CONSUMER "in" the BUY/SELL RETAIL contract being struck between himself and the VENDOR. He assumes certain responsibilities for his part of the BUY/SELL transaction. The CONSUMER entering into a BUY/SELL agreement is indebted to the VENDOR. Firstly, the CONSUMER is indebted to the VENDOR for the price of the MERCHANDISE. The CONSUMER, if the offer by the VENDOR is accepted, is bound to pay the price of the MERCHANDISE. Concering that TAX obligation it is not “illegal” for the VENDOR to “eat it” because all that is happening, in reality, is the price of the MERCHANDISE is being discounted. It is not uncommon for the VENDOR to offer a discount which is the same percentage as the obligatory TAX that is to be ‘collected’ at point of SALE. The TAX is still being collected but this might only be reflected on the paper work between the STATE and the VENDOR who acts as an AGENT for the STATE. It is an established fact that the STATE can come after the CONSUMER if the VENDOR cheats the STATE and fails to ‘remit’ the CONSUMER TAX. Example from a Louisiana Revenue site.
"The vendor acts as an agent on behalf of the state in collecting the sales tax due. In the event the vendor does not collect the sales tax, the department may seek to collect the sales tax from the seller or the purchaser. This issue is addressed in the court case Collector of Revenue v. J. L. Richardson Company, (App. 4 Cir. 1971, 247 So.2d 151) and by the definition of dealer under LAC 61:I.4301."
Another example of the same idea is found here:
www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/ 2003/iac/701iac/70118/70118pp6.pdf
“…if the retailer fails to collect either tax, the consumer is obligated to pay a consumer use tax”.
Any way we slice it, entering into a BUYER/SELLER agreement with a VENDOR who is a licensed TAX COLLECTING AGENT for the STATE puts all parties in COMMERCE which is regulated by GOVT STATUTES.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 18 Aug 2005 08:36:16 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2005 : 16:15:01
|
Greetings and salutations brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Thank you for your kindness in taking care of that other matter, my friend.
Please know that I have a well-rounded understanding of the use of the semi-colon, and most other “tricky punctuations”, and have since late grammar school (if memory serves me correctly), and that I knew from the outset that there were two separate thoughts in the Black’s Law definition of taxpayer, the second one being, one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution towards its support. [Emphasis added]
And, please know that I am familiar with what the word pecuniary means: 1. Relating to money; as pecuniary affairs or losses or, 2. Consisting of money; as a pecuniary mulct (fine) or penalty.
I fear we may be making a mountain out of a molehill here and are probably closer to agreeing than it may appear on the surface.
Use tax. A sales tax that is collectible by the seller where the purchaser is domiciled in a different state. A tax on the use, consumption, or storage of tangible property, usually at the same rate as the sales tax, and levied for the purpose of preventing tax avoidance by the purchase of articles in a state or taxing jurisdiction which does not levy sales taxes... - Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1073
The sales tax is merely a use tax as it pertains to strangers [entities domiciled in another jurisdiction] and does not create a permanent nexus (legal meaning) between the Stranger and the STATE, hence the Stranger does not become a subject of that STATE simply because he chose to pay a use tax, i.e. he is not a subject to STATE STATUTES in general, but rather only subjected to that one particular tax code, at that particular point in time. Can we agree on this one point?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 18 Aug 2005 18:24:31 |
|
|
|
Surveyor
Regular Member
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2005 : 19:33:36
|
There is no question that a buyer and seller may both be operating in commerce when a sale is made as in some of the examples that Steve has given but still it is the foundational law that governs jurisdiction, not administrative rules or statutes. Those rules only apply to those who are already bondservants subject to the jurisdiction that created the rules. The same can be said of the court cases cited. They are dealing with specific instances on how the rules apply to someone already subject to their jurisdiction. We must look deeper than legislative statutes and court opinions rendered in their equity to understand and see how one is brought under the states jurisdiction or how the Ecclesia (Church) may operate in the world but not of the world.
Of course we have all been taken in mostly because of our ignorance of law and covetousness but it was not and is not buying consumer products that made anyone liable for a sales tax. Regardless of who takes on the liability a sales tax is on the sale of the consumer products. Where the buyer walks in off the street into a store and buys what is
on display it is the seller who is obligated to come up with the sales tax. If you pay cash the seller usually does not even get a name so obviously a sales ticket standing alone does not create a contract or obligation on the buyer.
However the merchandise itself may be in commerce and subject to regulation or even confiscation.
An example would be a buyer from a foreign country subject to a foreign jurisdiction. If this buyer attempts to take goods that are subject to regulation in one place of jurisdiction into another the goods might be subject to confiscation although the buyer himself may
have immunity to the statute because he is subject to another master.
Law as generally looked upon is the greatest deception tool on the face of this earth. It is mans greatest adversary, yet he continually makes it his god. People in general love to be under law because they want their neighbor under law. Liberty is a fearful thing without
the peace of God and knowledge of His ways. So much so that people will readily trade their liberty for the security they imagine they have by attempting to keep evil from their door by binding their neighbor under codes and statutes.
Assuming that the intent of the law is justice and for the protection of life and liberty, law does not operate on or against free men without their consent, otherwise men are only perpetual slaves of the one who holds in his hand the power to administer the law.
A righteous man is not under law, but only the doer of an unlawful act. It seems that most of Paul's writings dealt with this one point. A free and righteous man is invisible to the eyes of the law. Law presumes that the deeds and acts of free men are honorable and are not subject to scrutiny. The men who said that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause understood this precept, at least to a certain extent. They also understood that a free man can not be put under the jurisdiction of the law until he has been accused of a damage or
injury against his neighbor. They also understood that even then a free man had a right to be examined by a grand jury of free men before he may be turned over and tried as a transgressor under the law.
On the other hand legal is created by law and operates on or against the thing or the man (the man himself is regulated-he is a servant under law). And legal becomes binding by law through consent in some form or making application or petition to the state for a benefit or privilege in a manner (oath or penalty of perjury) that indicates one understands what he is doing and by so doing makes himself a bondservant of the gods of that jurisdiction.
Christ preached a kingdom. He established a government. The ecclesia were those called to minister to the people and teach them how to come together in congregations under the liberty of that government. They did it once before in Rome. Can it be done again. I see even their laws recognize that it can, but the gold most likely will be tested in the fire.
Clarence
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2005 : 19:43:56
|
Thanks everybody for some great thoughts on a topic that most have to deal with daily!
Steve |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 08:38:28
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Clarence:
Peace be unto the house.
“Christ preached a kingdom. He established a government. The ecclesia were those called to minister to the people and teach them how to come together in congregations under the liberty of that government. They did it once before in Rome. Can it be done again. I see even their laws recognize that it can, but the gold most likely will be tested in the fire. – Clarence
Well said brother Clarence!! The only point we may conflict on is, “He established a government”. Our studies indicate that Yahuwah established, i.e. founded the government and Yahushua was anointed/appointed second in command over it.
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me
We perceive that Yahuwah is called Father in the same vein that George [Washington] was called father; they are, at least by some, both considered to founders of nations.
Father G3962 1b1) forefathers, founders of a nation – Thayer’s Greek Definitions
We further perceive that upon full manifestation of the Kingdom known as the Kingdom of heaven, the Kingdom of God or the commonwealth of Yisra’el, Yahushua [JESUS] will then step down and at that time there will be only one Head, Yahuwah.
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that Yahuwâh be all in all.
Which of course, pretty much dispels the binity or trinity theories. Some of the confusion on this issue stems from Yahushua’s statement that if you have seen me you have seen the Father.
Imagine if you will the highest Embassador (Representative) of a nation being sent to a subordinate foreign nation within his Master’s dominion, he relays his Supreme Suveran’s [Sovereign’s] message to its government officials and they say something to the effect of, “We need to see the Supreme Suveran of this nation”. As the perfect Embassador doing the perfect will of his Supreme Suveran he might in truth respond with, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (the Founder, and therefore Supreme Suveran of my nation). In other words, he is responding with…
“…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
3) God is called the Father…of all rational and intelligent beings…because he is their creator, preserver, guardian and protector – Thayer’s Greek Definitions
More appropriately “Yahuwah is called the Father of all rational and intelligent beings because he is their creator, preserver, guardian and protector”. And in a more general sense a god is called a father, or the reverse, a father can be called a god, because he is the creator, preserver, guardian and protector of a thing. The father of a thing is the founder/creator of a thing.
Synonyms for founder are: creator, originator, initiator, [and] organizer (MSWord 2000)
Hence, the creator, preserver, guardian and protector of a nation or country is its god or father, though we very, very seldom hear them referred to as gods any more because it is an absolute dead giveaway!
As we have stated elsewhere in this forum previously, it is our opinion, that this perception of what a god is, is positively vital to understanding The Scripture.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 24 Aug 2005 08:53:38 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 09:30:14
|
quote:
There is no question that a buyer and seller may both be operating in commerce when a sale is made as in some of the examples that Steve has given but still it is the foundational law that governs jurisdiction, not administrative rules or statutes. Those rules only apply to those who are already bondservants subject to the jurisdiction that created the rules. The same can be said of the court cases cited. They are dealing with specific instances on how the rules apply to someone already subject to their jurisdiction. We must look deeper than legislative statutes and court opinions rendered in their equity to understand and see how one is brought under the states jurisdiction or how the Ecclesia (Church) may operate in the world but not of the world.
This is the sticking point to the whole topic. When one enters into the COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION, even to BUY the CONSUMER GOODS, then one has put themselves into a realm that is governed by STATUTE, for that TRANSACTION. We came to them, not them to us. The BUYER takes on the status of CONSUMER during that TRANSACTION. That TRANSACTION, an action in COMMERCE, has a few steps that extend beyond just the point of SALE between BUYER and SELLER. One obligation is that the VENDOR 'remits' the TAX it collected.
quote:
Of course we have all been taken in mostly because of our ignorance of law and covetousness but it was not and is not buying consumer products that made anyone liable for a sales tax.
Consider this: A sales tax is not due if no sale is made. This tells us that it is the BUYING/SELLING of the product that creates a liability for a sales tax.
quote:
Regardless of who takes on the liability a sales tax is on the sale of the consumer products. Where the buyer walks in off the street into a store and buys what is on display it is the seller who is obligated to come up with the sales tax.
This is symantics. There are two parts to the TRANSACTION when it comes to TAX. Collecting and remiting. You are speaking of the SELLER’S part when you point out his obligation to ‘remit’ the TAX that he is licensed to collect. The fact that a license is required by the VENDOR who acts as an AGENT to ‘collect’ the TAX at point of SALE tells us quite a bit. Collect from who? The CONSUMER. Remit what? Remit the TAX that was collected by the Licensed VENDOR/AGENT at the point of SALE to the GOVT. It is the VENDOR’S obligation to ‘collect and remit’ the TAX.
quote:
If you pay cash the seller usually does not even get a name so obviously a sales ticket standing alone does not create a contract or obligation on the buyer.
Nobody is arguing that the SALES TICKET is a contract. The contract was created when the BUYER/SELLER made the agreement concering price and payment. The act itself is the contract. The TICKET would just be evidence “of” a contract. The obligation on the BUYER is to fulfill the simple terms of the agreement struck between the CONSUMER and the VENDOR (who is also a licensed AGENT of the GOVT to ‘collect and remit’ TAXES at the point of SALE). Most of the time, as in the case of INGLES FOOD STORE for example, this agreement includes the payment of SALES TAX which the VENDOR is licensed to ‘collect and remit’. After the TAX is collected from the CONSUMER it is the obligation of the VENDOR to then ‘remit’ that TAX to the GOVT.
quote:
However the merchandise itself may be in commerce and subject to regulation or even confiscation.
Well, why is it in commerce? Because it was purchased during an ACT of COMMERCE just to make one point. When a CONSUMER engages in a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION they are stepping, if only momentarily, into a realm regulated by GOVT STATUTE. A bigger question then arises. Is it a breach of the first commandment to enter into the realm of COMMERCE with a FICTITIOUS ENTITY. That's what is happening when we buy CONSUMER ITEMS.
quote:
An example would be a buyer from a foreign country subject to a foreign jurisdiction. If this buyer attempts to take goods that are subject to regulation in one place of jurisdiction into another the goods might be subject to confiscation although the buyer himself may
have immunity to the statute because he is subject to another master.
The point I am making comes even before that example. The BUYER, whether he be from a foreign country, whether he be a dog catcher, or a priest or a moral sentient being, is engaging in a TRANSACTION which is regulated by GOVT STATUTE. Using the INGLES SUPERMARKET example. A man from Sweden comes in and buys a pack of cigarettes. To conform to the demands of the SELLER he is required to pay in FRN’s as well as pay the CONSUMER TAXES. If he does not comply with these demands by the SELLER then no GOODS were sold, the Swedish man did not become a CONSUMER during his visit to INGLES. Very simple. If, on the other hand, the Swedish man complied to the demands, then he would have become a CONSUMER for the sake of STATUTORY REGULATIONS.
What's more, to highlight the role of the CONSUMER in such a transaction, is this fact: As I have shown in previous posts the STATE has the power to collect the CONSUMER TAX from the CONSUMER if the AGENT does not 'remit' such a TAX to the GOVT. Why? Because the CONSUMER was party to an ACT of COMMERCE which is regulated by GOVT STATUTE.
quote:
Law as generally looked upon is the greatest deception tool on the face of this earth. It is mans greatest adversary, yet he continually makes it his god. People in general love to be under law because they want their neighbor under law. Liberty is a fearful thing without the peace of God and knowledge of His ways. So much so that people will readily trade their liberty for the security they imagine they have by attempting to keep evil from their door by binding their neighbor under codes and statutes.
The point in this example is that when one willfully enters into a COMMERCIAL ACT then that one is entering into a realm that is GOVERNED by STATUTE. One is not forced into this. There is no obligation for anyone to PURCHASE CONSUMER GOODS or to do BUISINESS with a VENDOR. It is wilfullness that brings us into the COMMERCIAL REALM. That’s the difference.
quote:
Assuming that the intent of the law is justice and for the protection of life and liberty, law does not operate on or against free men without their consent, otherwise men are only perpetual slaves of the one who holds in his hand the power to administer the law.
Good point. A CONSUMER gives consent each step of the way during a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION. One might also refuse giving consent to pay the CONSUMER TAX that the VENDOR is licensed as an AGENT to ‘collect and remit’. Perhaps the VENDOR will accept this offer. Maybe not.
Either way, the TRANSACTION is in COMMERCE and that is a realm that is GOVERNED by STATUTE.
quote:
On the other hand legal is created by law and operates on or against the thing or the man (the man himself is regulated-he is a servant under law). And legal becomes binding by law through consent in some form or making application or petition to the state for a benefit or privilege in a manner (oath or penalty of perjury) that indicates one understands what he is doing and by so doing makes himself a bondservant of the gods of that jurisdiction.
Again, you hit the nail on the head with the word ‘consent’. COMMERCE is all about consent. We get what we negotiate in COMMERCE. If we want to negotiate with the GAS STATION, INGLES, etc. we are free to do so. It does not mean they will accept our offer and it does not mean we will accept theirs either. The acceptance only comes once the terms have been set. Often times the terms are posted on the PRICE TAG and the VENDOR will not negotiate. In this case our willful acceptance of the terms is us paying what the VENDOR demands. Here is where the Bondservant, the dog catcher, the moral sentient being, all wilfully enter into a realm REGULATED by GOVT STATUTE.... if only for a moment.
Regards,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 24 Aug 2005 12:35:48 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia
