Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NetJets Sues IRS Over $643 Million In Back Taxes
Aeronewsnetwork ^ | Tue, Nov 22, 2011 | Staff

Posted on 11/22/2011 6:17:32 PM PST by PilotDave

Berkshire's NetJets subsidiary has been assessed $643 million in back taxes, and NetJets has now responded with a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming the assessment is "illegal."

(Excerpt) Read more at aero-news.net ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: buffett; irs
Warren not only doesn't want to pay more taxes, he's suing the IRS over it...
1 posted on 11/22/2011 6:17:39 PM PST by PilotDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PilotDave

Bwwahaha


2 posted on 11/22/2011 6:19:38 PM PST by griswold3 (Character is Destiny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PilotDave

It appears to be a good call. IRS overreached in this case.


3 posted on 11/22/2011 6:23:26 PM PST by battlecry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PilotDave
Company Owned by Under-Taxed Billionaire Sues IRS for ‘Illegal’ $642 Million Tax Assessment

Come on, Mr. Buffett —can’t your company gladly pay the tax, refuse to pass the cost on to your customers and eat the loss for the benefit of America? Berkshire stockholders will understand, won’t they? After all, the extra tax money would go to such a worthy cause.

4 posted on 11/22/2011 6:24:00 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PilotDave

Suing the IRS, is this a common practice?


5 posted on 11/22/2011 6:24:00 PM PST by doc1019 (Romney will never get my vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
“Come on, Mr. Buffett —can’t your company gladly pay the tax, refuse to pass the cost on to your customers and eat the loss for the benefit of America? Berkshire stockholders will understand, won’t they? After all, the extra tax money would go to such a worthy cause.”

I love it.

6 posted on 11/22/2011 6:25:29 PM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

I love it when a plan comes together.

What, you say? This was not the plan? :-)


7 posted on 11/22/2011 6:27:07 PM PST by ataDude (Its like 1933, mixed with the Carter 70s, plus the books 1984 and Animal Farm, all at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PilotDave
Good luck with that.

Uncle Sam WILL get its pounds of flesh.

8 posted on 11/22/2011 6:27:12 PM PST by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PilotDave

So, Warren, how does it feel to be hassled by the IRS?


9 posted on 11/22/2011 6:33:30 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PilotDave

If he wasn’t such a hypocrite, he would just pay up. What’s a lousy $10 or $20 a ticket. Besides, the money would go to some of his favorite Progressive/Socialists friends. What’s 643 million to a billionaire, he’ll get it back on some slimy deal with the government anyway.


10 posted on 11/22/2011 6:41:20 PM PST by RetiredTexasVet (There's a pill for just about everything ... except stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet

Buffet now gets to face the consequences of his own words.


11 posted on 11/22/2011 6:44:05 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: battlecry

But Buffet ought to be happy to pay the extra tax since he wants rich people to pay more taxes. Why is he resisting?


12 posted on 11/22/2011 6:46:35 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

What goes around.


13 posted on 11/22/2011 7:00:09 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

I wish we could all file a class action lawsuit against them.


14 posted on 11/22/2011 7:21:06 PM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
Suing the IRS is a common practice. The IRS might propose an assessment of additional tax on an audit. The taxpayer might not agree. The taxpayer may appeal with the IRS Appeals Office. Many cases are settled there because the IRS Appeals Office may consider the hazards of litigation and propose a settlement. If the taxpayer and the IRS cannot agree at the IRS Appeals Office, the IRS will issue the taxpayer a statutory notice of deficiency, which is often called a 90-day letter. It gives the taxpayer 90 days to file a petition in the United States Tax Court. The taxpayer is called the petitioner and the Commissioner (of the IRS by title only) is called the respondent. If the taxpayer does not file a petition with the United States Tax Court, the IRS will proceed to assess and collect the tax. A taxpayer may sue for a refund of taxes paid in either the United States Court of Federal Claims or a United States District Court. In those courts, the party being sued is not the IRS or the Commissioner, but rather the United States of America.
15 posted on 11/22/2011 7:39:14 PM PST by TheCPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheCPA

Just the answer I was looking for, thanks.


16 posted on 11/22/2011 7:43:10 PM PST by doc1019 (Romney will never get my vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheCPA

WHICH United States???

By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall’s singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term “United States” can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:

The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.

[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]

This same Court authority is cited by Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of “United States”:

United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.

[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]

In the first sense, the term “United States*” can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The “United States*” is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where “U.S.*” refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this “United States*” as follows:

1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States*.” This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital “C” in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.

[Which One Are You?, page 11]

[emphasis added]

Secondly, the term “United States**” can also refer to “the federal zone”, which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term “United States**” is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, “The United States** is ...” or “Its jurisdiction is ...” and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:

2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the “United States**” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).

[Which One Are You?, page 11]

[emphasis added]

Thirdly, the term “United States***” can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term “United States***” does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term “United States***” is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, “These United States***” or “The United States*** are ...” and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these “United States***” as follows:

3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.

[Which One Are You?, pages 11-12]

[emphasis added]


17 posted on 11/22/2011 8:10:13 PM PST by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

see the post below yours post #17


18 posted on 11/22/2011 8:11:38 PM PST by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: phockthis

The same United States that collected the taxes.


19 posted on 11/23/2011 3:41:41 AM PST by TheCPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TheCPA

Then you must mean this one???


Secondly, the term “United States**” can also refer to “the federal zone”, which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term “United States**” is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, “The United States** is ...” or “Its jurisdiction is ...” and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:

2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the “United States**” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).


20 posted on 11/23/2011 4:34:30 AM PST by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson