Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ITIN and w-9 and taxes

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I suspect you are the one who also uses 4now user-ID (because I never noticed anyone ,except for you two, repeatedly spell "sep-E-r-E-ted" instead of "sep-a-r-a-ted" on this board).
    If you are 4now - then you are also the one who harrassed and insulted me ever since I registered and started to post on this board in 2004.

    If I am mistaken , then I would apologise, but I just kept noticing you and 4now making exactly same error in exactly same context and therefore , unless there is a strong evidence and proof to the contrary I will have no other choice but to allow that you are indeed an alter-ID of 4now.
    And as such you deserve all the names I called you.
    I tell you what. contact the admin and have the person confirm via PM that if the poster "*****" is really me. The copy the admin sends should contain all information that to know without a doubt it is confirmed.

    Indeed Jackarse is your ancestry.
    If you are not a lying m-o-t-h-e-r-f-u-c-k-e-r I insist you copy-paste and quote a SINGLE post where I threatened ANYONE !
    I repeat, copy-paste and show me a SINGLE post where I threatened ANYONE.
    Well, you did write, "Posted August 28, 2006 12:33 AM
    Didn't this Paco get deported yet?

    Hopefully soon he does so you can stop asking the same question you were asking for 2 years" which poster Chuck took offense by saying, "IMPRENETABLE-Your comment in not informative nor helpful and it would be better for everyone on this discussion board if you and your kind were banned. I do feel your a disturbed person to make remarks like this. We all feel sorry that your energy can't be put to helping, rather than trying to be hurtful." Since this post confirms you have attacked another poster. Any more proof or are you going to change the rules again.

    Lying piece of scum talks about rules? Confused Come on, give me a break !
    I leave it to admin to make final determination that 4now and E-Killer are indeed your IDs, and I hope he blocks those IDs so you won't be able to spew your garbage using multiple IDs on one hand, and then lecturing me about "rules" on the other.
    See first response.

    LOOK, I CALL HUDSON A B-I-T-C-H-A-S-S and M-O-T-H-E-R-F-U-C-K-E-R.
    If there is ANYTHING in US Constitution or US Law that says I can't call Hudson a B-I-T-C-H-A-S-S and M-O-T-H-E-R-F-U-C-K-E-R I challenge you to prove it in Court!
    Libel and slander are restricted under US Constitutional Law. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942), in which the Supreme Court stated, "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise constitutional problems." The Court in Chaplinsky held that defamatory speech is not essential to the exposition of ideas and can be regulated without raising constitutional concerns. This reasoning was confirmed in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 72 S. Ct. 725, 96 L. Ed. 919 (1952), where the Court held again that libelous speech is not protected by the Constitution.

    You ***, I said from the beginning that if one OWES TAXES one MUST PAY, no matter legal or illegal.
    I frequently repeated and stated from the beginning that under current policy IRS doesn't normally share taxpayer info. Yet no one can say if such policy wouldn't change in future.
    I thus fully agreed with you about strict non-disclosure policies by IRS, but also added that it still doesn't mean IRS can't or won't share info about illegal taxpayer.
    I didn't make any further clarifications, didn't say with whom, when, why or under what circumstances, so it was a general statement that still holds true if you look at exceptions under 6103.
    Actually, no you did not. You have stated that "It still doesn't mean that IRS won't/can't share info about illegal taxpayers." There is nothing in the IRC that can forment this argument. Again, propelling this argument is also detrimental to the administratino of tax collection. And by advocating such a position, you are purposely weakening the strict disclosure laws that the IRS has in place. This is what I have disagreed with you and also stated it will not happen unless very extreme circumstances take place.

    My personal opinion has always been that if one is unfortunate enough to be here illegally (in violation of immigration law) , the last thing one would want to do is to further aggravate his/her circumstances by violating even more laws.
    I never suggested anyone to break tax-law or any other law.
    Personal opinion has zero relevance in tax law.

    But you had to show your d.ick-head, as usual, and start arguing with me, claiming that I said things that were actually inside your own brain-dead-d.umb-donkey-head.
    And as if it wasn't enough now you threaten me with criminal lawsuit for intentional interference with tax authority.
    You are sick and need mental treatment, you degenerate!
    Where did you see me THREATEN the tax administration authority?
    Did you EVER SEE me telling people that they have $0 tax liability and should pay $0 tax if they make $10-20-50-100K per year?
    Now DID you?

    No, you didn't, you ***, so you better shut up and stop making these idiotic claims that I have no intention to tolerate from you.
    Again, the argument has been "It still doesn't mean that IRS won't/can't share info about illegal taxpayers." You even gave a GAO study to confirm your argument. Proposals is not tax law and the report also stated that there other Constitutional issues at stake since there would also be USC and Legal residents tax sensitive data at risk. You are postiongs things which you have not read completely nor do you have any detailed knowledge whatsoever.

    Read Section 6103(c) through 6103(o) and you will see for yourself under what circumstances IRS can share info with other agencies or person/s (currently those non-disclosure policies are very strict, as I repeatedly mentioned in my earlier posts)
    Apparently you never have read mine. Again, I gave you the exact circumstances which IRS can disclose tax sensitive data without taxpayer authorization. They include:
    IRC 6103(d)provides that return information may be shared with state agencies responsible for tax administration. The state agency must request this information in writing, and the request must be signed by an official designated to request tax information.

    IRC 6103(i)(1)provides that, pursuant to court order, return information may be shared with law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of non-tax criminal laws.

    IRC 6103(k)(6)allows the IRS to make limited disclosures of return information in the course of official tax administration investigations to third parties if necessary to obtain information that is not otherwise reasonably available.

    IRC 6103(l)(1)provides that return information related to taxes imposed under chapters 2, 21, and 24 may be disclosed to the Social Security Administration (SSA) as needed to carry out its responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Chapter 2 relates to self-employment income and does not normally concern employers. Chapter 21 concerns social security and Medicare (FICA) tax, and chapter 24 deals with income tax withholding.

    Aside from IRS (which currently , I repeat, has very strict non-disclosure policies) , "SSA is authorized to provide DHS a
    specific data file that contains information compiled from employer earnings reports and SSA
    data".
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06814r...enforcement%22
    SSA follows the same basic rules as IRS with sensitive taxpayer data.

    How come, despite the provisions being in existence (certain sub-sections of 6103) you still claim that the statement above is false?
    I gave you the precise locations of disclosure laws, yet you keep insisting that the IRS won't/can't disclose sensitive taxpayer identification with ICE or other non tax compliance law enforcement agencies. Your statement is inherently false and any provation on perpetuating such a broader scope is inherently dangerous. The disclosure laws will not change in the near or far future. It will be political suicide.

    The only thing you need are BRAINS, d.umb-a-s-s.
    Well, at least I do not use circular arguments like you. YOu still do not know what the **** you are talking about, expecially when you are giving links that you have not read.
    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

    Comment


    • #47
      I tell you what. contact the admin and have the person confirm via PM that if the poster "*****" is really me. The copy the admin sends should contain all information that to know without a doubt it is confirmed.
      I didn't mention *****.
      Here is what I actually wrote:
      "I suspect you are the one who also uses 4now user-ID (because I never noticed anyone ,except for you two, repeatedly spell "sep-E-r-E-ted" instead of "sep-a-r-a-ted" on this board).
      If I am mistaken , then I would apologise, but I just kept noticing you and 4now making exactly same error in exactly same context and therefore , unless there is a strong evidence and proof to the contrary I will have no other choice but to allow that you are indeed an alter-ID of 4now.
      And as such you deserve all the names I called you."
      I still maintain that you are the alter-ID of 4now.
      Prove that you are not.


      Well, you did write, "Posted August 28, 2006 12:33 AM
      Didn't this Paco get deported yet?
      Hopefully soon he does so you can stop asking the same question you were asking for 2 years" which poster Chuck took offense by saying, "IMPRENETABLE-Your comment in not informative nor helpful and it would be better for everyone on this discussion board if you and your kind were banned. I do feel your a disturbed person to make remarks like this. We all feel sorry that your energy can't be put to helping, rather than trying to be hurtful." Since this post confirms you have attacked another poster. Any more proof or are you going to change the rules again.

      Just because you possess intellect so feeble and comprehension of English so poor that you equate to "threat" and "attack" what you quoted above doesn't mean that I either threatened or attacked anyone.
      Saying to chuck or anyone else "stop this BS" isn't the same as saying "chuck, I know where you are and stay where you at for I am coming to hammer your head".
      Intellect as feeble and dim as yours may be incapable of discriminating between those two statements, but just because you are an idiot doesn't mean that you are correct.


      See first response.
      You see above.


      Libel and slander are restricted under US Constitutional Law. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942), in which the Supreme Court stated, "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise constitutional problems." The Court in Chaplinsky held that defamatory speech is not essential to the exposition of ideas and can be regulated without raising constitutional concerns. This reasoning was confirmed in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 72 S. Ct. 725, 96 L. Ed. 919 (1952), where the Court held again that libelous speech is not protected by the Constitution.
      It's true that libel and slander aren't protected under Free Speech clause, but what an idiot you are if you claim that I libel and slander while I have no idea who you are and what your name is.
      Is Hudson your legal name, is that the name that appears on your legal ID and did you ever introduce yourself so ("My LEGAL NAME IS Mr. Hudson"and etc.) to be able to claim now that I am slandering and libeling you?

      Actually, no you did not. You have stated that "It still doesn't mean that IRS won't/can't share info about illegal taxpayers." There is nothing in the IRC that can forment this argument. Again, propelling this argument is also detrimental to the administratino of tax collection. And by advocating such a position, you are purposely weakening the strict disclosure laws that the IRS has in place. This is what I have disagreed with you and also stated it will not happen unless very extreme circumstances take place.
      Again you spew bunch of empty, stupid lies - as usual.
      What I stated was a general statement and as such it still holds true.

      Personal opinion has zero relevance in tax law.
      Your head is perennially stuck in your donkey-hole, so there is no hope that you would ever comprehend this, but still, let me ask: where in my statement that you refer to did you see me stating that my opinion has relevance in tax law ( meaning my opinion decides outcome of the existing law and not vice versa ) ?
      I mean, how stupid and brainless you could be?
      Einstein was referring to d.umba.sses just like yourself when he said that human stupidity is infinite beyond any doubt.
      Your mother must have copulated with donkeys to bring to life such a brainless ignoramus as yourself.


      Again, the argument has been "It still doesn't mean that IRS won't/can't share info about illegal taxpayers." You even gave a GAO study to confirm your argument. Proposals is not tax law and the report also stated that there other Constitutional issues at stake since there would also be USC and Legal residents tax sensitive data at risk. You are postiongs things which you have not read completely nor do you have any detailed knowledge whatsoever.
      Argument still holds true. It was a general statement ( as I repeatedly said to you ,brick-head), and AS SUCH it still holds true.
      Aside from above GAO study states that SSA routinely shares certain filing info with DHS. That's a fact cited on GAO report and I gave a link to it.
      Finally, I never claimed that "proposal is a law".
      This is another assumption YOU have made, ****-4-brains, probably because your mother copulated with donkeys before concieving and giving a birth to you.

      Apparently you never have read mine. Again, I gave you the exact circumstances which IRS can disclose tax sensitive data without taxpayer authorization. They include:
      IRC 6103(d)provides that return information may be shared with state agencies responsible for tax administration. The state agency must request this information in writing, and the request must be signed by an official designated to request tax information.
      IRC 6103(i)(1)provides that, pursuant to court order, return information may be shared with law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of non-tax criminal laws.
      IRC 6103(k)(6)allows the IRS to make limited disclosures of return information in the course of official tax administration investigations to third parties if necessary to obtain information that is not otherwise reasonably available.
      IRC 6103(l)(1)provides that return information related to taxes imposed under chapters 2, 21, and 24 may be disclosed to the Social Security Administration (SSA) as needed to carry out its responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Chapter 2 relates to self-employment income and does not normally concern employers. Chapter 21 concerns social security and Medicare (FICA) tax, and chapter 24 deals with income tax withholding.
      I have read all relevant statutes (6103), you ****sterhead.

      Therefore I wrote:
      "Read Section 6103(c) through 6103(o) and you will see for yourself under what circumstances IRS can share info with other agencies or person/s (currently those non-disclosure policies are very strict, as I repeatedly mentioned in my earlier posts"

      I gave you the precise locations of disclosure laws, yet you keep insisting that the IRS won't/can't disclose sensitive taxpayer identification with ICE or other non tax compliance law enforcement agencies
      No, son of a donkey, you didn't disclose locations of IRS disclosure laws, I did.
      Second, read over what you wrote above: "you keep insisting that the IRS won't/can't disclose sensitive taxpayer identification with ICE or other non tax compliance law enforcement agencies."
      Wasn't it you , idiot, who was making that argument all along?
      What an idiot! Your mother must have copulated with 10.000 donkeys before you were born....



      Your statement is inherently false and any provation on perpetuating such a broader scope is inherently dangerous.
      You must have been addressing yourself...


      The disclosure laws will not change in the near or far future. It will be political suicide.
      Only God knows for certain what will or won't change in future.


      Well, at least I do not use circular arguments like you.
      Oh really?
      Seriously, I suggest you go ask your mom how many donkey d.icks did she s.uck and with how many did she sleep before she gave you a birth.
      If you are lucky you may still find your dad in some nearby zoo and share with him all your "wisdom".

      You still do not know what the **** you are talking about, expecially when you are giving links that you have not read.
      Yeah, right, she must have enjoyed it too.

      IE
      ___________________________________

      [COLOR:BLUE][B]When the creations of a genius collide with the mind of a layman, and produce an empty sound, there is little doubt as to which is at fault.

      One day it will have to be officially admitted that

      Comment


      • #48
        I still maintain that you are the alter-ID of 4now.
        Prove that you are not.
        I still maintain that you are the alter-ID of 4now.
        Prove that you are not.
        Since you changed your post after 48 hours from the original changing of the ID's "4now" and "*****," I am still challenging you with any MEPP other than yours. Have the admin send a certified copy of the same message verifying either name.

        Again you spew bunch of empty, stupid lies - as usual.
        What I stated was a general statement and as such it still holds true.
        Sharing sensative taxpayer identification numbers is not the same thing what SSA shares with other federal agencies. Again, with respect to disclosing sensitive taxpayer data, SSA is strictly prohibited in the same manner as IRS when or how to disclose sensitive taxpayer identification numbers. How dense are you not to understand this basic concept in confidentiality laws?

        I have read all relevant statutes (6103), you ****sterhead.
        You had no idea where the disclosure laws were, are, and continue to be. The only reason why I gave you the precise subsections was to show on which circumstances the IRS may disclose without taxpayer authorization. You stated, "where in that particular statute it speaks of current IRS DISCLOSURE POLICIES?" Again, anyone with some valuable knowledge of tax law would have 1) not made that particular statement just quoted, and 2) not have made the general statement, "2. Filing Tax While Illegal is like screaming loud : " I am here and an illegal !! IRS may not share the info with ICE today (under current policy), but who can tell if IRS won't share it tomorrow, under different, new policy?" and 3) not have made the statement "It still doesn't mean that IRS won't/can't share info about illegal taxpayers." None of these statement are accurate to begin with in a general sense, and definitely reprehensible in specifics of tax law. Again, I provided the only 4 circumstances in which IRS can currently disclose taxpayer information to other federal agencies. Any broadening of powers would have detrimental effects on tax compliance. This is what AICPA and NAEA. BTW, what I gave you was a reference on how limited immigration and IRS law intersect, not disclusure. If you had any sense on how tax law is applied, you would have had some inclination, but since you didn't, you want on the circular argument again.

        No, son of a donkey, you didn't disclose locations of IRS disclosure laws, I did.
        Second, read over what you wrote above: "you keep insisting that the IRS won't/can't disclose sensitive taxpayer identification with ICE or other non tax compliance law enforcement agencies."
        Wasn't it you , idiot, who was making that argument all along?
        What an idiot! Your mother must have copulated with 10.000 donkeys before you were born....
        Here we go again, another circular argument. This is high school stuff boy. Now, I will show you what I posted using IRC:
        Posted August 30, 2006 06:59 PM
        IRC 6103(d)provides that return information may be shared with state agencies responsible for tax administration. The state agency must request this information in writing, and the request must be signed by an official designated to request tax information.

        IRC 6103(i)(1)provides that, pursuant to court order, return information may be shared with law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of non-tax criminal laws.

        IRC 6103(k)(6)allows the IRS to make limited disclosures of return information in the course of official tax administration investigations to third parties if necessary to obtain information that is not otherwise reasonably available.

        IRC 6103(l)(1)provides that return information related to taxes imposed under chapters 2, 21, and 24 may be disclosed to the Social Security Administration (SSA) as needed to carry out its responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Chapter 2 relates to self-employment income and does not normally concern employers. Chapter 21 concerns social security and Medicare (FICA) tax, and chapter 24 deals with income tax withholding.

        The post you gave prior, although the section, does not give what you were advocating, "2. Filing Tax While Illegal is like screaming loud : " I am here and an illegal !!".
        IRS may not share the info with ICE today (under current policy), but who can tell if IRS won't share it tomorrow, under different, new policy?" and "It still doesn't mean that IRS won't/can't share info about illegal taxpayers." You only gave a general reference where the law was. Again, I asked you several times where the specific subsection was that allowed the IRS to share information with nontax compliance cases.

        Only God knows what will or won't change in future.
        Yet another high school circular argument. Do you ever grow up boy. Again, your statement were suggesting and/or implying that IRS won't/can't share information. You also stated that the IRS will know when an illegal alien is identified when one files a return. Both general statements are at least misleading, if not reprehensible. Again, most illegals will file Sch C income where there is no paper trail to begin with and may still get a refund if certain conditions are met. You would have known this if you had some knowledge, but you don't.

        Your head is perennially stuck in your donkey-hole, so there is no hope that you would ever comprehend this, but still, let me ask: where in my statement that you refer to did you see me stating that my opinion has relevance to tax law?
        I mean, how stupid and brainless you could be?
        Einstein was referring to d.umba.sses just like yourself when he said that human stupidity is infinite.
        Your mother must have copulated with donkeys to bring to life such a brainless ignoramus as yourself.
        Again, I said personal opinions have no relevance in tax law. There was no mention to you specifically.

        My patience is wearing thin. You continuously use insults to attempt to prove your point. Only a child with no intelligence would do such. This does not make you tough or act tough. YOu are a weasel not worth moosespit.
        "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

        Comment


        • #49
          Since you changed your post after 48 hours from the original changing of the ID's "4now" and "*****," I am still challenging you with any MEPP other than yours. Have the admin send a certified copy of the same message verifying either name.
          PROVE that you are not 4now.
          You and 4now are two users who consistently spelled sep-E-r-E-ted instead of sep-A-r-A-ted.
          (coincidentally you both boasted or claimed to be well versed in financial matters).
          So, PROVE that you are not 4now.
          I don't have control over admin, nor do I intend to waste my time on writing to admin and asking him to show me the confirmation of the obvious.
          Burden is on you to prove that you are not 4now, in light of what I noted about you two.

          Sharing sensative taxpayer identification numbers is not the same thing what SSA shares with other federal agencies.
          Here is the fact (and what I specifically quoted):
          "SSA is authorized to provide DHS a
          specific data file that contains information compiled from employer earnings reports and SSA
          data".
          http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06814r...enforcement%22


          Again, with respect to disclosing sensitive taxpayer data, SSA is strictly prohibited in the same manner as IRS when or how to disclose sensitive taxpayer identification numbers. How dense are you not to understand this basic concept in confidentiality laws?
          See above

          You had no idea where the disclosure laws were, are, and continue to be.
          This is not true.
          In fact I was the one who mentioned the proper IRC Section (6301) and provided the link to it as well.
          Here is the proof:

          Impenetrable, Posted Posted August 30, 2006 11:01 AM : "Visit link below and read CTM 42.00 , in Re: 26 U.S.C. § 6103(c) through 26 U.S.C. § 6103(o).
          http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/readingroom/2001ctm/42ctax.htm#42.01"

          Prior to that you referred only to IRC 3121(b)(19) IRC 7701(b) in the context of relevant IRC sections where one can find exceptions to non-disclosure:
          Hudson, Posted August 28, 2006 07:20 AM : [quote, IE]Wise-Donkey is basically correct.
          IRS is the only one with some of the strictest disclosure laws.
          Most other Gov. agencies exchange info much more freely.
          It still doesn't mean that IRS won't/can't share info about illegal taxpayers.[/quote]
          You are stating more wishful thinking here and actual facts. IRS receives a lot of information from various state and federal agencies, but never the disclosure information that will make it easy to create identity theft. Immigratino status is rarely used when applying tax law. But if you look at IRC 3121(b)(19) IRC 7701(b) you will find those are the only exceptions.[/quote][/quote]


          The only reason why I gave you the precise subsections was to show on which circumstances the IRS may disclose without taxpayer authorization.
          The only reason you started to speak of relevant subsections ( AFTER I provided you a link to IRC 6301) was your foolish hope to confuse me by applying the very circular argument that you ,at the same time,unreasonably and hipocritically accuse me for.

          You stated, "where in that particular statute it speaks of current IRS DISCLOSURE POLICIES?"
          Yes, and I repeat my question: WHERE IN THOSE PARTICULAR STATUTES YOU ORIGINALLY REFERRED TO [EITHER IRC 3121(b)(19) or IRC 7701(b)] , WHERE IN THOSE PARTICULAR STATUTES IT SPEAKS OF IRS DISCLOSURE POLICIES?
          Answer is: NOWHERE. IRS non-disclosure laws are spelled under subsections of IRC 6301, particularly under subsections 6301(c) through 6301(o).


          Again, anyone with some valuable knowledge of tax law would have 1) not made that particular statement just quoted,
          This statement clearly refers to yourself (see above).

          2) not have made the general statement,
          WHY is is that I can't make a general statement that is TRUE?
          I don't have a comprehensive and minute knowledge of tax laws ( I alredy stated in my earlier post that my knowledge of tax-laws is rather basic) , so you didn't discover America if you state the obvious and what I admitted myself.
          However, what I find NOTABLE in the context of all your posts is that:
          1. You lack even BACIS knowledge of tax-laws while claiming to be a tax-law expert.
          2. Statements that you keep making are either FALSE or half-truth mixed with half-FALSE.
          Now, that is something that YOU wouldn't do if you had at least a bit of intellectual honesty and knowledge of the limits of your own "expertise".


          Filing Tax While Illegal is like screaming loud : " I am here and an illegal !! IRS may not share the info with ICE today (under current policy), but who can tell if IRS won't share it tomorrow, under different, new policy?"
          What is false about above statement?

          If you are illegal you are likely to file either using ITIN, or SS# which explicitly states that you are not authorised to work or , in some cases, authorised to work with INS permission.
          Info about all those returns are maintained in special designated files and IRS or SSA are thus aware that you are either: a) unauthorised to work beyond any doubt (ex. used SS designated as "Not valid for work" or used ITIN in lieu of or regular SS) , or b) you may be authorised to work by INS, however it's not certain unless you can prove so (ex. used SS designated "Valid for work with INS permission ONLY")
          So, when you file your taxes (as you MUST, regardless of immigration status, if your income exceeds the minimum taxable income), so when you file your taxes while illegally in US you indeed testify to your presence and working in US in violation of immigration laws.
          As of today IRS , following existing laws and policies, doesn't normally share that info with ICE.
          However, there is no guarantee that it won't /can't share it in furure if proposed laws and policies are accepted (or under any other changed circumstances).

          So, what is wrong with the statement you quoted?


          not have made the statement "It still doesn't mean that IRS won't/can't share info about illegal taxpayers."
          See above


          None of these statement are accurate to begin with in a general sense, and definitely reprehensible in specifics of tax law.
          See above

          Again, I provided the only 4 circumstances in which IRS can currently disclose taxpayer information to other federal agencies.
          Did I argue about/dispute specific circumstances under which IRS can currently disclose taxpayer info?
          What are you quoting subsections of 6301 for?


          Any broadening of powers would have detrimental effects on tax compliance.
          As of today this is the general philosophy guiding IRS.
          But dynamics may shift in future, under heavy pressure or change of law, especially if immigration hardliners gain seats in congress and push with greater energy for passage of laws that would allow for sacrifice ( the detrimental effects ) for the benefit of enforcing the immigration laws, apprehending and deporting illegals.


          If you had any sense on how tax law is applied, you would have had some inclination, but since you didn't, you want on the circular argument again.
          Again, sounds like you are addressing yourself.


          Here we go again, another circular argument. This is high school stuff boy. Now, I will show you what I posted using IRC:
          Posted August 30, 2006 06:59 PM....
          You posted all this, as I noted earlier, only AFTER I gave you a link to IRC 6301.
          To be exact, the first time you made reference to IRC-6301 ONLY 7 hours and 58 minutes AFTER I gave you a link to those non-disclosure statutes.
          Prior to that you didn't even know of it's existence in the context of discussing non-disclosure laws*.

          *See above: IE - "I was the one who mentioned the proper IRC Section (6301) and provided the link to it as well.
          Here is the proof:
          Impenetrable, Posted Posted August 30, 2006 11:01 AM : "Visit link below and read CTM 42.00 , in Re: 26 U.S.C. § 6103(c) through 26 U.S.C. § 6103(o).
          http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/readingroom/2001ctm/42ctax.htm#42.01"
          Prior to that you referred only to IRC 3121(b)(19) IRC 7701(b) in the context of relevant IRC sections where one can find exceptions to non-disclosure:
          Hudson, Posted August 28, 2006 07:20 AM : [quote, IE]Wise-Donkey is basically correct.
          IRS is the only one with some of the strictest disclosure laws.
          Most other Gov. agencies exchange info much more freely.
          It still doesn't mean that IRS won't/can't share info about illegal taxpayers.[/quote]
          You are stating more wishful thinking here and actual facts. IRS receives a lot of information from various state and federal agencies, but never the disclosure information that will make it easy to create identity theft. Immigratino status is rarely used when applying tax law. But if you look at IRC 3121(b)(19) IRC 7701(b) you will find those are the only exceptions.[/quote][/quote]


          Yet another high school circular argument. Do you ever grow up boy.
          What is CIRCULAR about stating the OBVIOUS: that Only God knows for certain what will or won't change in future?
          Do you claim to be a Nostradamus and to know future?

          Again, your statement were suggesting and/or implying that IRS won't/can't share information.
          I think you are hopelessly confused yourself, Hudson, or else, you are foolishly hoping to confuse me.

          And what a hipocrite you are to accuse me of "circular argument" while you are the one engaging in it!
          Just read over what I wrote above and save me the trouble of embarrassing you once again.


          My patience is wearing thin. You continuously use insults to attempt to prove your point. Only a child with no intelligence would do such. This does not make you tough or act tough. YOu are a weasel not worth moosespit.
          As a matter of principle I decided to stop name-calling you, instead I will methodically and coolly advance my argument, making it so much harder for you to maintain your false statements.


          IE
          ___________________________________

          [COLOR:BLUE][B]When the creations of a genius collide with the mind of a layman, and produce an empty sound, there is little doubt as to which is at fault.

          One day it will have to be officially admitted that

          Comment

          Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

          Home Page

          Immigration Daily

          Archives

          Processing times

          Immigration forms

          Discussion board

          Resources

          Blogs

          Twitter feed

          Immigrant Nation

          Attorney2Attorney

          CLE Workshops

          Immigration books

          Advertise on ILW

          EB-5

          移民日报

          About ILW.COM

          Connect to us

          Questions/Comments

          SUBSCRIBE

          Immigration Daily



          Working...
          X