Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The IRS National Compliance Survey should have started with Paul Thomas

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

  • The IRS National Compliance Survey should have started with Paul Thomas

    I report my income and pay my taxes honestly, Thomas. And just what tricks
    are you showing your "clients" to help them not pay their fair share? That's
    the question, when it come to honesty. The IRS National Compliance Survey
    should have started with you, Thomas! Who knows what wonders they would have
    found.
    ----------------------------------------------
    " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
    with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
    (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

    ak



  • #2
    Andy the perpetual liar


    "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    I report my income and pay my taxes honestly,

    Andy, you liar you.


    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
    free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
    "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
    can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
    to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
    to be part of the National Guard."


    No one pretends that those are your first three lies.

    That's the question, when it come to honesty.

    Honesty? You wouldn't know honesty if it bit you in your ***.


    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
    free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
    "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
    can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
    to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
    to be part of the National Guard."


    You posted that, and pretend to be honest?


    Who knows what wonders they would have found.

    I'm quite certain if you were audited, there wouldn't be an ounce of truth
    in you.

    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
    free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
    "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
    can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
    to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
    to be part of the National Guard."




    --
    Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
    1. All the DNA is the same.
    2. There are no dental records.
    --------------------------
    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
    Athens, Georgia



    Comment


    • #3
      Andy the perpetual liar


      "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      I report my income and pay my taxes honestly,

      Andy, you liar you.


      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
      free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
      "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
      can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


      On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
      to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
      to be part of the National Guard."


      No one pretends that those are your first three lies.

      That's the question, when it come to honesty.

      Honesty? You wouldn't know honesty if it bit you in your ***.


      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
      free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
      "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
      can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


      On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
      to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
      to be part of the National Guard."


      You posted that, and pretend to be honest?


      Who knows what wonders they would have found.

      I'm quite certain if you were audited, there wouldn't be an ounce of truth
      in you.

      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
      free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
      "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
      can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


      On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
      to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
      to be part of the National Guard."




      --
      Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
      1. All the DNA is the same.
      2. There are no dental records.
      --------------------------
      Paul A. Thomas, CPA
      Athens, Georgia



      Comment


      • #4
        Do you know how pathetic you sound Paul?

        Do you know how pathetic you sound Paul?

        ----------------------------------------------
        " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
        with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
        (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

        ak


        Comment


        • #5
          Do you know how pathetic you sound Paul?

          Do you know how pathetic you sound Paul?

          ----------------------------------------------
          " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
          with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
          (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

          ak


          Comment


          • #6
            Do you know how pathetic your lies are Andyl?


            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            Do you know how pathetic you sound Paul?

            I don't know Andy, why don't you make up another lie.

            On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
            free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
            "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


            On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
            can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


            On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
            to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
            to be part of the National Guard."





            --
            "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
            none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
            Athens, Georgia
            taxman at negia.net


            Comment


            • #7
              Do you know how pathetic your lies are Andyl?


              "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
              Do you know how pathetic you sound Paul?

              I don't know Andy, why don't you make up another lie.

              On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
              "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
              free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
              "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


              On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
              "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
              can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


              On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
              "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
              to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
              to be part of the National Guard."





              --
              "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
              none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

              Paul A. Thomas, CPA
              Athens, Georgia
              taxman at negia.net


              Comment


              • #8
                Do you know how pathetic your lies are Thomas

                "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                news:[email protected]
                "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                Do you know how pathetic you sound Paul?
                I don't know ....
                Some actual honesty out of Paul Thomas.
                How refreshing!

                ak


                Comment


                • #9
                  Do you know how pathetic your lies are Thomas

                  "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:[email protected]
                  "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                  Do you know how pathetic you sound Paul?
                  I don't know ....
                  Some actual honesty out of Paul Thomas.
                  How refreshing!

                  ak


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Can Andy be honest?


                    "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    I don't know .... Some actual honesty out of Paul Thomas. How refreshing!

                    It'd be refreshing to hear honesty from you, instead of more lies.

                    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                    free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                    "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


                    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                    can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


                    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                    to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                    to be part of the National Guard."



                    Be honest now, do you have any proof that you told the truth?



                    --
                    Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
                    1. All the DNA is the same.
                    2. There are no dental records.
                    --------------------------
                    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                    Athens, Georgia


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Can Andy be honest?


                      "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                      I don't know .... Some actual honesty out of Paul Thomas. How refreshing!

                      It'd be refreshing to hear honesty from you, instead of more lies.

                      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                      "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                      free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                      "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


                      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                      "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                      can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


                      On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                      "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                      to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                      to be part of the National Guard."



                      Be honest now, do you have any proof that you told the truth?



                      --
                      Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
                      1. All the DNA is the same.
                      2. There are no dental records.
                      --------------------------
                      Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                      Athens, Georgia


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Can Paul Thomas, CPA(?) fathom the word &quot;honest&quot;?

                        "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                        news:[email protected]
                        ...... Seems that Paul Thomas Ivy (from Texas it seems) was responding to a Lee Harrison, where it seems, this Lee Harrison person thinks that belonging to the National Guard (the militia, as it were), . . .
                        No little boy Paul! The "militia" called out in the US Constitution is not
                        the government organization call the "National Guard." So maybe you really
                        don't support the 2nd Amendment. Sure looks that way. Read carefully, little
                        red-faced boy: "the term 'militia' to relate to every citizen capable of
                        bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
                        Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
                        doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."

                        ---------------------

                        The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT
                        of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
                        of the UNITED STATES SENATE

                        NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

                        Second Session February 1982

                        Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                        " . . . .

                        No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have
                        recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
                        these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations
                        which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators
                        have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional
                        history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second
                        Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -
                        apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First
                        and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
                        from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual
                        guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
                        arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
                        constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the
                        second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
                        instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
                        regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and
                        bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
                        that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable
                        of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
                        Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
                        doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

                        When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of
                        Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a
                        blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals
                        for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating
                        all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
                        distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania
                        minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
                        other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
                        be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
                        security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing
                        arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House,
                        this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the
                        proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were
                        then trimmed in the interests of brevity.

                        ----------------------------------------------
                        " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
                        with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
                        (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

                        ak



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Can Paul Thomas, CPA(?) fathom the word &quot;honest&quot;?

                          "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                          news:[email protected]
                          ...... Seems that Paul Thomas Ivy (from Texas it seems) was responding to a Lee Harrison, where it seems, this Lee Harrison person thinks that belonging to the National Guard (the militia, as it were), . . .
                          No little boy Paul! The "militia" called out in the US Constitution is not
                          the government organization call the "National Guard." So maybe you really
                          don't support the 2nd Amendment. Sure looks that way. Read carefully, little
                          red-faced boy: "the term 'militia' to relate to every citizen capable of
                          bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
                          Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
                          doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."

                          ---------------------

                          The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT
                          of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
                          of the UNITED STATES SENATE

                          NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

                          Second Session February 1982

                          Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                          " . . . .

                          No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have
                          recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
                          these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations
                          which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators
                          have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional
                          history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second
                          Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -
                          apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First
                          and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
                          from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual
                          guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
                          arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
                          constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the
                          second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
                          instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
                          regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and
                          bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
                          that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable
                          of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
                          Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
                          doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

                          When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of
                          Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a
                          blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals
                          for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating
                          all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
                          distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania
                          minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
                          other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
                          be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
                          security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing
                          arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House,
                          this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the
                          proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were
                          then trimmed in the interests of brevity.

                          ----------------------------------------------
                          " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
                          with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
                          (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

                          ak



                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Will Andy be honest?


                            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            Seems that Paul Thomas Ivy (from Texas it seems) was responding to a Lee Harrison, where it seems, this Lee Harrison person thinks that belonging to the National Guard (the militia, as it were), . . . No little boy Paul! The "militia" called out in the US Constitution is not the government organization call the "National Guard."

                            Take it up with Lee Harrison.

                            Andy, are going to admit that you can't prove that I said anything like what
                            you claim I said?

                            On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                            free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                            "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


                            On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                            can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


                            On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                            to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                            to be part of the National Guard."


                            --
                            "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
                            none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

                            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                            Athens, Georgia
                            taxman at negia.net


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Will Andy be honest?


                              "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                              Seems that Paul Thomas Ivy (from Texas it seems) was responding to a Lee Harrison, where it seems, this Lee Harrison person thinks that belonging to the National Guard (the militia, as it were), . . . No little boy Paul! The "militia" called out in the US Constitution is not the government organization call the "National Guard."

                              Take it up with Lee Harrison.

                              Andy, are going to admit that you can't prove that I said anything like what
                              you claim I said?

                              On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                              "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                              free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                              "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


                              On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                              "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                              can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


                              On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                              "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                              to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                              to be part of the National Guard."


                              --
                              "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
                              none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

                              Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                              Athens, Georgia
                              taxman at negia.net


                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X