Talk:Tax protester statutory arguments

message: A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment 

message: Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment]] reminder

message: Given the size of this page, I think now is the time to break out the information on the 861 argument into a separate article. Any thoughts on that? bd2412 T 06:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe make both separate - this article is very long right now, and frankly I think the 861 argument is independently a very interesting topic (and probably can be expanded more). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea (making two new articles). Famspear (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break out the 861 argument 

message: I don't contribute here ever so forgive me if I'm doing this wrong. Someone won their case, and I was reading this article here after finding it interesting.  Here is the source if anyone wants to document it or do more research:  http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321  68.104.55.137 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those citations have something in common - they refer to the findings made by the jury. The judge determines the law, the jury determines the facts - such as whether Cryer had an honest misunderstanding of the law. This is the same argument that led to the partial acquittal of Wesley Snipes. However, the jury could not (and therefore did not) determine whether the income tax itself is legal. In short, Cryer was unable to convince the judge of the law, but was able to convince the jury of his ignorance of the law. bd2412 T 23:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone Won 

message: I propose to move the section of the Gross income article on tax protester arguments on gold coins to this article as part of the overhaul of that article.  You may view the section at Gross income#Federal income tax implications of receipt of gold or silver coins.  I will also propose on the discussion page for Gross income.  Comments? Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move of section from Gross Income to this article 

message: This article has continued to grow well beyond typically recommended bounds. I propose, therefore, breaking out all the purely administrative materials into a separate article, Tax protester administrative arguments. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good section to pull out - maybe the legal obligation section in it's own article Tax protestor legal obligation arguments?  Just thinking a bit ahead. Ravensfire (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is also a good one to stand on its own, since it is premised on ignorance of the statutes rather than interpretation of them. This seems like a noncontroversial  proposal, I'm going to go ahead and execute it. bd2412 T 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length, again. 

message: In the following sentence from the article:
:The Federal tax evasion tracks the language of statutory provisions such as Code section 1 (the imposition statute for the individual income tax), with both statutes using the word "imposed":
...it looks like there's a noun missing after "The Federal tax evasion" -- probably "statute"?  I'm also not sure if "tracks" is the clearest word here.  I'm assuming in this context it means "follows" or "matches" or something similar; I would recommend a less jargon-y word if possible.
Can someone confirm, deny, and/or edit to fix these points?  Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I fixed it. Famspear (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing word?