Abolish the IRS

The Observer Online: Viewpoint ^ | 11/8/05 | Scott Wagner

[ancient_geezer]

The paragraph says "within the meaning of section 103"

You are correct, which deals with "exemption related" controveries for business purchases, conversions of business properties, purchases of foreign goods brought into the U.S. for consumption, barter and inter company sales which are exempt from the tax and makes clear reference to section 502 certification requirements for obtaining such exemption over which the controversy would arise.

`SEC. 103. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF TAX.

• `(a) Liability for Collection and Remittance of the Tax- Except as provided otherwise by this section, any tax imposed by this subtitle shall be collected and remitted by the seller of taxable property or services (including financial intermediation services).

• `(b) Tax to Be Remitted by Purchaser in Certain Circumstances-

• • `(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of taxable property or services purchased outside of the United States and imported into the United States for use or consumption in the United States, the purchaser shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.

• • `(2) CERTAIN WAGES OR SALARY- In the case of wages or salary paid by a taxable employer which are taxable services, the employer shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.

• `(c) Conversion of Business or Export Property or Services- Property or services purchased for a business purpose in a trade or business or for export (sold untaxed pursuant to section 102(a)) that is subsequently converted to personal use shall be deemed purchased at the time of conversion and shall be subject to the tax imposed by section 101 at the fair market value of the converted property as of the date of conversion. The tax shall be due as if the property had been sold at the fair market value during the month of conversion. The person using or consuming the converted property is liable for and shall remit the tax.

• `(d) Seller Relieved of Liability in Certain Cases- In the case of any taxable property or service which is sold untaxed pursuant to section 102(a), the seller shall be relieved of the duty to collect and remit the tax imposed under section 101 on such purchase if the seller--

• • `(1) received in good faith, and retains on file for the period set forth in section 509, a copy of a registration certificate from the purchaser, and

• • `(2) did not, at the time of sale, have reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was not registered pursuant to section 502.

• `(e) Purchaser Liable to Collect and Remit in Certain Cases- In the case of any taxable property or service which is sold untaxed pursuant to section 102, if the seller is relieved by reason of subsection (d) of the duty to collect and remit the tax imposed by section 101, then the duty to pay any tax due shall rest with the purchaser.

• `(f) Barter Transactions- If gross payment for taxable property or services is made in other than money, then the person responsible for collecting and remitting the tax shall remit the tax to the sales tax administering authority in money as if gross payment had been made in money at the tax inclusive fair market value of the taxable property or services purchased.

• `(g) Intercompany Sales- Firms that make purchases from affiliated firms that are untaxed pursuant to section 102, or make sales to affiliated firms that are untaxed pursuant to section 102, shall not need to comply with the requirements of subsection (d) (relating to certificates) for said purchases or sales to remain untaxed.

 

Once again you attempt to misdirect attention from the vendor and business purchases for business purpose that is the primary subject of tax exemption and who are subject to the production of documentation related to their claimed exemption.

[pigdog]

As you know - or should - Nightie, he DID NOT make the prediction that wages would decline as a consequence of the FairTax being implemented. The comments you gnomes keep harping (erroneously) on were in relation to what the intended handling in his model might be - the assumption that wages would decline by the payroll/withholding taxes for the purposes of his model.

Instead of that sort of misdirection, talk about purchasing power and the benefits to taxpayers after the FairTax is implemented. THAT'S why Jorgenson is in favor of the FairTax ... because it greatly benefits taxpayers economically and the country as well. He certainly isn't favoring it because it reduces wages (since it doesn't) - and you know it.

[Your Nightmare]

As you know - or should - Nightie, he DID NOT make the prediction that wages would decline as a consequence of the FairTax being implemented. The comments you gnomes keep harping (erroneously) on were in relation to what the intended handling in his model might be - the assumption that wages would decline by the payroll/withholding taxes for the purposes of his model.

No, he didn't make the "prediction," he made the "assumption." So what's your point?

THAT'S why Jorgenson is in favor of the FairTax

What makes you think Jorgenson is in favor of the FairTax? This is just another one of your lies.

He certainly isn't favoring it because it reduces wages (since it doesn't) - and you know it.

And yet, that is the assumption he made when he modeled the NRST. Funny, huh?

[Always Right]

I thought it was well established on the last thread that pigdog does not understand what an assumption is. Please reframe from using difficult words that confuse him.

[pigdog]

... and look who's talking about being confused!!!

Bite your tongue (so it doesn't confuse you).

[pigdog]

The point , oh obstreperous one - is that you SQL types keep pushing the assumption as though it was a prediction of what would actually happen ... and it was not that at all.

Clearly it is as Jorgenson said to me in an email (which I've posted before) in just the last few weeks:

"As I tried to suggest ... substitution of a National Retail Sales Tax for the existing income tax would result in gains that would accrue to workers and investors due to greater economic efficiency.
Best, Dale Jorgenson"

As has been pointed out many times before, the assumption for the model is just that - an assumption - and it means little WRT the actual outcome since wages will stay the same, not decrease. The good Prof. certainly wouldn't be saying the sales tax would offer gains not found in the income tax unless he favored the sales tax.