NITE and TaxGate strategy as detailed by Rose
As I remember, Rose has been a poster boy for Thurston Bell.
Hmmmm! Looks like we might get a legal test of how well the 861/Subchapter 'N' argument stands up to appeal, real soon. Providing Mr. Bell and N.I.T.E. stand up to be counted instead wilt at the view of trouble blowing in the winds.
The judge, Christopher C. Conner, ordered the proponent, Thurston Paul Bell of Hanover, Pa., to post the court's order at his Web site (www.nite.org). Mr. Bell was also ordered to remove all language promoting the claim, known as the 861 position after a section of the tax code, that only those working for foreign-owned companies owe taxes on their wages.
Mr. Bell must turn over to the Justice Department copies of his client's tax returns, notify them that their returns were false and notify them that in addition to owing taxes they may face penalties for filing frivolous returns. Any refunds they obtained were erroneous, Judge Conner said, and the Internal Revenue Service may take them back.
The 861 position is nonsense, ruled Judge Conner of United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. At least a dozen other courts have taken the same position, but that has not stopped people from paying at least $1,000 to Mr. Bell and others who claim that they have found a way to legally stop paying taxes.
Judge Conner noted that Mr. Bell conceded that Section 861 specified that wages earned in the United States were taxable.
Mr. Bell said, however, that the regulations implementing the law exempted wages paid by domestic companies from being taxed. Judge Conner said this false claim "rests purely on semantics and takes the regulations under Section 861 out of context."
Good chance for all these folks to make it a real stand. Seems to me the people involved should be contacting the IRS on their own, chomping at the bit to let the government know what 861 really means.
You wouldn't by chance be on one of Bell's mailing lists would you?
We'll see what happens, I guess.
Rose is not afilliated with either NITE or Taxgate. He's just a person that took the time to analyse the argument. Same for me. This statement I make under my own name, without using an alias, in public. What statements do you make using your real name, not using an alias?
Bell was burned for charging for his advice and his counsel. That's it. If they could have got him on his arguments, they would have. Again, a judge just says the argument is wrong without an analytical opinion.
Aren't you even the least suspicious when someone says "That's wrong" but declines to discuss it? Judges are no different. They know the axe that hangs over their heads.
Believe what you will. You post the same old tired misconceptions over and over, and I answer them over and over. How many hundreds of paragraphs have I written showing precisely how the snippets you post have nothing to do with the sources argument, pointing out precisely where each goes astray? And yet you keep posting them.
When you can tell me you have read the argument and understand it, and can show me you do (unlike past times, when your statements indicated the opposite), I'll be glad to talk to you about it, leaving emotion and investment in new taxing schemes aside.