It’s a good start, now if they extend the pay to play to the big players it
might restore some faith in the FBI. Clinton foundation?
by Allen Williams
Update: July 16, 2020: I still had not heard from the Kansas Dept of Revenue and so decided to call them the first week in July to contest
their refusal of my personal deduction. Despite the Covi-19 staffing
crisis, I was surprised to get someone on the phone. I anticipated I
might have to discuss my situation with one of the supervisors if I
could get one but the fellow I drew was surprising knowledgeable. This
meant the department was down to its most competent people so likely
that meant only supervisors.
Explaining the problem, I wanted to know if someone had claimed me on
their K-40 form. Now here is where it gets a bit bizarre. The response
was that no one had claimed me or gotten my identity information so but
only that I had not claimed the personal exemption.
It was an incredible statement because I remember clearly claiming the
exemption. Kansas no longer provides the K-40 form, you have to download
and print the desired form from the KDOR web site at:
https://www.ksrevenue.org/forms.html. I remember when I printed the
form, the orange category blocks appeared somewhat lighter than the
original on file but my markings in those faint boxes were clearly
visible and I remember claiming the exemption. My markings were close
enough to the orange.box selected to ascertain what I had claimed.
However it was rejected for any number of reasons: (1) the dept couldn't
be sure what box I actually checked (even though I had filed single'
status, they could not be certain that one') was the correct number of
exemptions). (2) Bureaucratic vindictiveness. Any and all forms are
summarily rejected if there is any deviancy from their standards. Your
number isn't precisely within the borders of their box or it's a
half-space higher or lower than the line containing the choice selection
causing confusion'. (3) Punishment. Computer rejection of your tax form
(probably because of conditions listed in (2)), creating a situation
where the dept must manually process the form. (4) Revenue increase, We
can't eliminate my original contention that any and all means will be
employed to increase tax revenues regardless of the facts. If the
taxpayer accepts KDOR's evaluation and pays the extra revenue, so be it.
The state is behind in their Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS)
because taxes weren't high enough during past conservative
administrations. The state Supreme Court dictates what must be spent on
education and the state's lawyers regularly sue the legislature to
extort more money for education while also being sued by judges for not
sufficiently funding the judiciary. And when you have to defend against
a lawsuit wherein the state's lawyers choose the state Supreme Court
judges, you can guess the outcome. Corruption in the state is rampant.
It's a challenge to keep one's self solvent.
In this age of economic turmoil brought on by Covid-19, states are
having to scramble for new sources of income to make ends meet because
they will not control spending. This situation is particularly egregious
due to the state Supreme court dictating the amount of revenue that
must be spent on schools and various lawyer's endlessly suing the state
legislature.So every return is considered a possibility for squeezing
out extra revenue.
In my discussion with KDOR, it was suggested that I file an amended
return which I did making certain that everything (including the orange
boxes) were well defined on the form. We'll see if this one is accepted
or it comes back for some other reason
Original Post
In this age of economic turmoil
brought on by Covid-19, states are having to scramble for new sources of income
to make ends meet because they will not control spending. This situation is
particularly egregious due to the state Supreme court dictating the amount of
revenue that must be spent on schools and various lawyer's endlessly suing the
state legislature.So every return is considered a possibility for squeezing out
extra revenue.
In late June 2020 I received a notification from the infamous Kansas Department
of Revenue that my personal exemption was NOT allowed.
K-40 'Letter Rejecting my personal Exemption
Yes, you read that
correctly my $2250 standard deduction was not allowed! Why how could that be
possible?, you ask. Because that deduction is available to every taxpayer
filing a return you state. Yes, but only if you are NOT claimed as a dependent
on someones else's return. According to KDOR instructions recorded in Kip19.pdf
for 2019, LINE 5:
LINE 5 (Exemption allowance): Multiply the total number of exemptions claimed
on Form K-40 by $2,250. ImportantIf you are claimed as a dependent by another
taxpayer, enter "0" on line 5.
Of course, I didn't record a zero in line 5 of my K-40 State income tax form
ostensibly because I thought I was not subject to reclassification based on
another person's filing.
K-40 'adjustment' schedule from KDOR regarding
my tax submittal.
I had just 30 days to respond. (See KDOR letter dated June 24, 2020). THIS
NOTIFICATION SHOULD SERIOUSLY DISTURB EVERY TAXPAYER IN THE STATE. If this can
happen to me it certainly can happen to anyone over 55.
First of all look at line 2 of KDOR's letter regarding, 'RE': their revision
reasons. My return status is listed as part of a 'joint filing' submission made
by parties unknown. Whoever it is I'm not related because I have no relatives
residing in Kansas. But claimants are more likely to be an assisted living,
nursing home or convalescent center businesses who handle a lot of clients
where relationship is not relative. (Never mind the technicality that I've
never been in any such facility.)
I've not signed any kind of guardianship documents naming individual(s) that
could affect such a claim and there is no court order adjudicating my
dependency. I have no medical conditions that would support a dependency claim
and I have given NO consent to anyone to do so. Therefore there is no legal
basis for this reclassification, it is PURELY outrageous FRAUD!.
The 'Exemptions and Dependents' category of he K-40 tax form requires each
dependent's social security No. and date of birth to be listed along with their
relationship so whoever has perpetrated this fraud has acquired my S.S. Number
and date of birth otherwise KDOR would have challenged the claimant(s).
However, unsurprisingly Kansas has no requirement, as does the IRS -1040 form,
for the dependent to certify that he is a dependent on claimant's filing.
Typically when you claim a dependent on a state form you have to FIRST claim
them on the Federal form but interestingly enough I NEVER heard from the IRS.
If KDOR had performed this simple check of my 1040 they would have noticed that
I DID NOT check this box and coupled with my years of single filing status
should have triggered a warning flag.
But remember the purpose here is to generate extra tax revenue (and ethics
really isn't a consideration), so as long as the claim is reasonably accurate
no need to do anything more than perpetrate the fraud because this year it
costs me $111 and every subsequent year the claimant(s) wish to perpetrate it.
KDOR gets the money and the claimant gets an extra $2250 deduction against
their income so everyone wins but me. You may remember my 2019 KDOR posting
where they had no record of my $18 tax payment (even though I gave them the
check No. and date). They attempted to charge me again if I didn't produce a
copy of their endorsement seal on my check. This year they're increasing the
stakes.
Letter to KDOR Contesting denial of my Personal Exemption.
On June 26, 2020 I filed a rebuttal to the Kansas Dept of revenue emphatically
denying that I am a consensual legal dependent on any persons or business
firm's return and copying the Kansas Attorney General along with the Governor.
In my correspondence I demanded that KDOR take remedial action against
claimants which would infer producing signature evidence of my agreement or a
COURT ORDER affirming said status and in the meantime to honor my return as
filed.
These people aren't particularly friendly or cooperative as they regard
taxpayers as something simply to be milked. So we'll see how this goes as I
await their response.
United States: We are at War -- watch this important video
THE COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF THE UNITED STATES
Isn’t it odd that the very liberals that accused Sara Palin of being a “Book Burner”
are now
out destroying anything that reflects upon our past history?
Well this is certainly another look and opinion per the Civil War,Slavery, and it's history.
A Tale of Two Monuments
Thomas J. DiLorenzoThomas J.
DiLorenzo
|Posted: Jun 17, 2020 9:39 AM
Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has ordered the removal of the monument to
Robert E. Lee on Monument Avenue in Richmond. The social and political
significance of this is different from what many (perhaps most) Americans,
educated in our politically correct government schools, think it
will be. Let’s compare the meaning of the Lee monument to its most famous
counterpart, the Lincoln Memorial.
The Lee monument means different things to different people, but history is
history, and one thing the monument stands for is the act of defiance against
the central state that occurred when the Southern states seceded from the union.
Nineteenth-century Southerners were the only group in American history to
ever seriously defy what they believed to be unconstitutional dictates of
Washington, D.C. They took seriously the Jeffersonian dictum in the
Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed, and whenever government fails, in their opinion, to
promote their happiness, they have a duty to abolish that government and replace
it with a new one. The U.S. government responded to Southern defiance by waging
total war on the entire Southern population, which led to the death of
one-fourth of the adult male population and some 50,000 civilians according to
historian James McPherson.
Past generations of Southerners revered Robert E. Lee because he
successfully defended Richmond for three years from the kind of looting and
burning that occurred in Atlanta, Columbia, and many other Southern cities and
towns. In his book, What They Fought For: 1861–1865, James McPherson concluded
that the typical Confederate soldier believed he was fighting
against an invading army that would loot and burn his town and threaten his
family and friends; the typical Union Army solder
thought he was fighting for “the flag” and “the Union.”
The Lincoln Memorial is a monument honoring the government’s waging
of total war against its own citizens to prevent acts of defiance and
to deter them in the future. As H. L. Mencken remarked in a critique of the
Gettysburg Address, it was Southerners who were fighting for the consent of
the governed; the North was fighting against it.
Lincoln did not invade the South to free the
slaves. Both President Lincoln and the U.S.
Congress informed the world in 1861 that the war had nothing to do with
slavery. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln
declared, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” In the same
address, he also pledged his support for a constitutional
amendment—the
Corwin Amendment—that would have prohibited the federal
government from ever interfering with slavery. It read: “No
amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to
Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic
institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the
laws of said state.” It had already passed the
Republican-controlled House and Senate and was ratified by Illinois, Ohio, Rhode
Island, Maryland, and Kentucky.
The July 25, 1861, Crittenden–Johnson Resolution, also known as the
“War Aims Resolution,” was issued by the House and Senate and declared that
“this war is not waged on our part” for any “purpose of overthrowing or
interfering with the rights or established institutions of the States,” by which
they meant slavery. The official purpose of the war was to “save the
union” by forcing the Southern states back into it at gunpoint and,
most importantly to Lincoln, restoring their federal
tax collections (mostly tariffs). In other words, its purpose
was to destroy, not save, the voluntary union of the founders and replace it
with a coerced union held together by violence.
The Lincoln Memorial celebrates this, above all else, as explained by a
National Park Service publication entitled “Secret Symbol of the Lincoln
Memorial” by Nathan King. The “true meaning” of the Memorial is represented by a
“ubiquitous symbol” that is all over it. That symbol is the “fasces,” a “bundle
of rods bound together by a leather thong.” The fasces (where the word “fascism”
comes from) were used by Roman emperors as a “symbol of power and authority,”
according to this U.S. government publication.
The rods of the fasces “suggest punishment by beating” and the axe
“suggests beheading” of those who disobey the emperor’s orders. “Power,
strength, authority [of government], and justice” are what the fasces mean. They
represent “the power and authority of the state over the citizens.” Lest
Americans be repulsed by such authoritarian and, well, fascist language, the
article contends that the fasces were “Americanized” by placing an eagle above
them all around the Lincoln Memorial.
So, according to the U.S. government, the “true meaning” of the Lincoln
Memorial is essentially that the American people are no longer the masters but
rather the servants of their own government. Government’s “just powers” are no
longer dependent upon the consent of the governed, but on the opinions of the
federal government itself, primarily through its own Supreme Court.
The one unequivocal good that
came from Lincoln’s war was, of course, the ending of slavery in 1866 with the
Thirteenth Amendment, although Lincoln’s role in passing the amendment has been
exaggerated by historians according to Pulitzer Prize–winning Lincoln biographer
David Donald. Lincoln’s biggest failure, however, was that the U.S. government
did not end slavery the way all other governments of the world (including the
northern states in the U.S.) did in the nineteenth century: peacefully. Only in
America was there a war that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths associated
with the ending of slavery. Following the British model, the North’s financial
cost of the war alone would have been enough to purchase the freedom of all the
slaves and end the evil institution once and for all, according to historian
Jeffrey Hummel.
...................................
*Dr.
Thomas DiLorenzo is the author of The Problem with
Lincoln (Regnery History; July 2020) and The Problem with
Socialism and is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises
Institute.