Internal Revenue Law, 1879, What Real Taxes Look Like

For many, the IRS is the most feared agency associated with the United States Federal Government.  And for good reason.  The IRS will freeze your bank account, seize your assets and more if they think you owe them money.  I have been posting on here for several weeks that the vast majority of people do not owe income taxes.  Most people find that very difficult to believe, because they were never taught the truth in school like they were supposed to have been taught.

  Keep the populace ignorant in order to control them.  So what are legal taxes?  We decided to go back into history and find evidence of what legal taxes look like and how the Internal Revenue system is actually supposed to work.  We do pay a great number of legal taxes, however, way to many people of these United States pay way to much illegal taxes.  The way that works is you are required to kno0w the law.  If you do not know the law, then by presumption of law, you owe taxes on your income.

 

Internal revenue codes of 1879 from Chuck Thompson  Book Digitized by Google

So the above digital book is provided to you so that you can see what lawful taxes look like.  Now keep in mind, our Federal government, all of our roads, communications, railways, military, weapons and supplies, public schooling and so much more was all financed through the taxation of certain specific commercial goods only.  It's right there in black and white as evidence for all to see.  There was absolutely no taxes on the wages earned by anyone. 

  Many people want to argue that the 16th Amendment gave the Federal Government the right to tax any for of income in any way the government wishes.  NO!  It did not.

"

The Kerbaugh-Empire Co. case

In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), the Supreme Court, through Justice Pierce Butler, stated:

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [citations omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [citations omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [citations omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital."

Now by all means, what is a gain derived from labor?  I went to the ultimate source for that answer.  The Bible.

 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

3What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

8All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

In other words, labor has zero gain.  Therefore taxes on labor can not be made.  A profit on labor, which would be a fair tax would be something along the line of profit sharing or bonuses paid.  Those items are taxable.  Those are profits on labor.  Labor itself is not a gain.  You don't have to believe in the bible to profit from it's words.  So for the purpose of income taxes, taxes on your wages, is not what you are supposed to be paying, unless you want to.  Then you volunteer.  Royalties from your work, that is taxable and is fair.  Pay for the actual work itself before royalties, not fair.  Even the IRS can not define income tax on wages.  It simply does not exist.

    https://youtu.be/YWZ10bpVmp0  The link here will take you to a video that shows very extensively that neither the government nor the IRS can explain taxes on wages as income or a gain and or profit.  In fact, the IRS has been losing cases against this guy for the past 30 years.  This guy even has lawsuits now up before Congress against the IRS and it's not looking good for the IRS either.  If we are going to fix this country, we all must take an active role and do some research and share that research with everyone.  

http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence/c03/amend16.html  Details on the 16th Amendment and the Constitution.  Where the courts are in violation of the Constitution.

http://www.tax-freedom.com/taxsummary.htm  Further arguments.  

http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap5.html

Now, there is a loophole in all of this for the IRS and the Federal Government.  Foreign workers are not the people of the several states or you are free to use the term, US Citizen.  As such the IRS has unlimited and unrestricted rights to tax wages of foreigners working in this country or people working overseas or in US territories, and earning wages from non US companies.  Then the 16th Amendment applies as from any source without apportionment.  Are you a foreigner?  I'm not.  It's how the tax code is written.  That has already been shown on this site.

Mobster McAuliffe Strikes Again, Vetoes House Bill 1470 Claiming Coal Tax Exemptions

Mobster Terry McAuliffe vetoes house bill 1470 claiming it gives a tax incentive to coal companies.  We don't see it, and if it does, so what?  They deserve tax credits considering what the socialist propagandists have done lying about the industry.

  Here is the statement from the mobster's office.



Governor McAuliffe Bill Reinstating Costly and Ineffective Coal Tax Credit without Meaningful Reform

Governor Terry McAuliffe today vetoed Senate Bill 1470, which would reinstate the coal employment and production incentive tax credit and extend the coalfield enhancement tax credit without meaningful reforms:

March 17, 2017

Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia of Virginia, I veto Senate Bill 1470, which would reinstate the coal employment and production incentive tax credit and extend the allowance of the coalfield employment enhancement tax credit without meaningful reform.

As I stated last year when I vetoed similar legislation, I work tirelessly to build a new Virginia economy and ensure that the Commonwealth is the best place to live, work, and run a business. Making the most effective use of every dollar taxpayers entrust to their government is an essential part of that effort.

In January 2012, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) published its final report, Review of the Effectiveness of Virginia Tax Preferences, Senate Document No. 4. That report established that the coal tax credits were intended to slow the decline of coal production and employment. Instead, JLARC found that the decline of coal production and employment was the same or even faster than was predicted before the credits were created. JLARC's report concluded that the economic activity had not moved in the desired direction and that the credits had not achieved their goal.

Specifically, from 1988 until 2016, coal mine operators, electricity generators, and other coal-related companies have claimed over $637 million in tax credits. However, during the same period, the number of coal miners in Virginia has declined from 11,106 to 2,483. It would be unwise to spend additional taxpayer dollars on a tax credit that has fallen so short of its intended effectiveness.

Given the findings of the JLARC study and the lack of meaningful reform, including in this year’s legislative session, I believe it would be inappropriate to sign this legislation.

Accordingly, I veto this bill.

Sincerely,

Terence R. McAuliffe

Now let's look at the actual bill.  Can someone please show me where the tax incentive for coal companies are?  I may have overlooked them, but I don't think so.  

HOUSE BILL NO. 1470 Offered January 11, 2017 Prefiled December 9, 2016 A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 58.1-512 and 58.1-513 of the Code of Virginia, relating to land preservation tax credits; limitations. ---------- Patrons-- Ware, Aird, Hugo, Jones and Orrock ---------- Referred to Committee on Finance ----------

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That §§ 58.1-512 and 58.1-513 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 58.1-512. Land preservation tax credits for individuals and corporations.

A. 1. For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2000, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax liability imposed by §§ 58.1-320 and 58.1-400, an amount equal to 50 percent of the fair market value of any land or interest in land located in Virginia which is conveyed for the purpose of agricultural and forestal use, open space, natural resource, and/or biodiversity conservation, or land, agricultural, watershed and/or historic preservation, as an unconditional donation by the landowner/taxpayer to a public or private conservation agency eligible to hold such land and interests therein for conservation or preservation purposes. For such conveyances made on or after January 1, 2007, the tax credit shall be 40 percent of the fair market value of the land or interest in land so conveyed.

2. For taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2017, the amount of credit issued under this article shall not exceed $2 million for each conveyance of land or interest in land.

3. For purposes of the limitation set forth in subdivision 2, the credits allowed under this article with respect to donations of any other portion of a recorded parcel of land within the preceding 11 years shall be aggregated with the credit requested for the current conveyance. This subdivision shall not apply if (i) all owners of the parcel who have been allowed credit for a qualified donation are not affiliated with the person or entity seeking credit for the current donation of a different portion of the parcel and (ii) in the case of an individual seeking credit, the individual has not previously made a qualified donation for any portion of the parcel and is not an immediate family member of any such owners.

B. The fair market value of qualified donations made under this section shall be determined in accordance with § 58.1-512.1 and substantiated by a "qualified appraisal" prepared by a "qualified appraiser," as those terms are defined under applicable federal law and regulations governing charitable contributions. The value of the donated interest in land that qualifies for credit under this section, as determined according to appropriate federal law and regulations, shall be subject to the limits established by United States Internal Revenue Code § 170(e). In order to qualify for a tax credit under this section, the qualified appraisal shall be signed by the qualified appraiser, who must be licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia as provided in § 54.1-2011, and a copy of the appraisal shall be submitted to the Department. In the event that any appraiser falsely or fraudulently overstates the value of the contributed property in an appraisal that the appraiser has signed, the Department may disallow further appraisals signed by the appraiser and shall refer the appraiser to the Real Estate Appraiser Board for appropriate disciplinary action pursuant to § 54.1-2013, which may include, but need not be limited to, revocation of the appraiser's license. Any appraisal that, upon audit by the Department, is determined to be false or fraudulent, may be disregarded by the Department in determining the fair market value of the property and the amount of tax credit to be allowed under this section.

C. 1. The amount of the credit that may be claimed by each taxpayer, including credit claimed by applying unused credits as provided under subsection C of § 58.1-513, shall not exceed $50,000 for 2000 taxable years; $75,000 for 2001 taxable years; $100,000 for each of 2002 through 2008 taxable years; $50,000 for each of 2009, 2010, and 2011 taxable years; $100,000 for each of 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxable years; and $20,000 for each of 2015 and 2016 taxable years; and $50,000 for 2017 taxable years and for each taxable year thereafter. However, the amount of the credit that may be claimed by each taxpayer, including credit claimed by applying unused credits as provided in subsection C of § 58.1-513, shall not exceed $100,000 for each taxable year for any fee simple donation of land conveyed to the Commonwealth on or and after January 1, 2015, the amount of the credit claimed shall not exceed $100,000 for each taxable year but before January 1, 2017, and shall not exceed $50,000 for each taxable year for any fee simple donation of land conveyed to the Commonwealth on and after January 1, 2017, provided that no part of the charitable contributions deduction under § 170 of the Internal Revenue Code related to such fee simple donation is allowable by reason of a sale or exchange of property. In addition, for each taxpayer, in any one taxable year the credit used may not exceed the amount of individual, fiduciary or corporate income tax otherwise due. Any portion of the credit that is unused in any one taxable year may be carried over for a maximum of 10 consecutive taxable years following the taxable year in which the credit originated until fully expended. A credit shall not be reduced by the amount of unused credit that could have been claimed in a prior year by the taxpayer but was unclaimed. For taxpayers affected by the credit reduction for taxable years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2015 and thereafter, any portion of the credit that is unused in any one taxable year may be carried over for a maximum of 13 consecutive taxable years following the taxable year in which the credit originated until fully expended.

2. Qualified donations shall include the conveyance of a fee interest in real property or the conveyance in perpetuity of a less-than-fee interest in real property, such as a conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction, or watershed preservation restriction, provided that such less-than-fee interest qualifies as a charitable deduction under § 170(h) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation shall compile an annual report on qualified donations of less-than-fee interests accepted by any public or private conservation agency in the respective calendar year and shall submit the report by December 1 of each year to the Chairmen of the House Committee on Appropriations, House Committee on Finance, and the Senate Committee on Finance. In preparing such report, the Department of Conservation and Recreation shall consult and coordinate with the Department of Taxation and the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture and Consumer Services to provide an estimate of the number of acres of land currently being used for "production agriculture and silviculture" as defined in § 3.2-300 that have been protected by qualified donations of less-than-fee interests. This report shall include information, when available, on land qualifying for credits being used for "production agriculture and silviculture" that have onsite operational best management practices, which are designed to reduce the amount of nutrients and sediment entering public waters. In addition, the report shall include information, when available, on riparian buffers, both vegetated/forested buffers and no-plow buffers, required by deed restriction on land qualifying for credits in order to protect water quality. This information shall be reported in summary fashion as appropriate to preserve confidentiality of information. Qualified donations shall not include the conveyance of a fee interest, or a less-than-fee interest, in real property by a charitable organization that (i) meets the definition of "holder" in § 10.1-1009 and (ii) holds one or more conservation easements acquired pursuant to the authority conferred on a "holder" by § 10.1-1010.

3. Any fee interest, or a less-than-fee interest, in real property that has been dedicated as open space within, or as part of, a residential subdivision or any other type of residential or commercial development; dedicated as open space in, or as part of, any real estate development plan; or dedicated for the purpose of fulfilling density requirements to obtain approvals for zoning, subdivision, site plan, or building permits shall not be a qualified donation under this article.

4. Qualified donations shall be eligible for the tax credit herein described if such donations are made to the Commonwealth of Virginia, an instrumentality thereof, or a charitable organization described in § 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if such charitable organization (i) meets the requirements of § 509(a)(2) or (ii) meets the requirements of § 509(a)(3) and is controlled by an organization described in § 509(a)(2).

5. The preservation, agricultural preservation, historic preservation or similar use and purpose of such property shall be assured in perpetuity. In the case of conveyances of a fee interest to a charitable organization that is a "holder" as defined in § 10.1-1009, the credit shall not be allowed until the charitable organization agrees that subsequent conveyances of the fee interest in the property will be (i) subject to a previous conveyance in perpetuity of a conservation easement, as that term is defined in § 10.1-1009, or subject to the conveyance in perpetuity of an open-space easement, as that term is defined in § 10.1-1700, or (ii) conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia or to a federal conservation agency. No credit shall be allowed with respect to any subsequent conveyances by the charitable organization.

D. The issuance of tax credits under this article for donations made on and after January 1, 2007, shall be in accordance with procedures and deadlines established by the Department and shall be administered under the following conditions:

1. The taxpayer shall apply for a credit after completing the donation by submitting a form or forms prescribed by the Department in consultation with the Department of Conservation and Recreation. If the application requests a credit of $1 million or more or if the donation meets the conditions of subdivision 3 c, then a copy of the application shall also be filed with the Department of Conservation and Recreation by the taxpayer. The application shall include, but not be limited to:

a. A description of the conservation purpose or purposes being served by the donation;

b. The fair market value of land being donated in the absence of any easement or other restriction;

c. The public benefit derived from the donation;

d. The extent to which water quality best management practices will be implemented on the property; and

e. Whether the property is fully or partially forested and a forest management plan is included in the terms of the donation.

2. Applications for otherwise qualified donations of a less-than-fee interest shall be accompanied by an affidavit describing how the donated interest in land meets the requirements of § 170(h) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations adopted thereunder. The application with accompanying affidavit shall be submitted to the Department of Taxation, with a copy also provided to the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

3. a. No credit in the amount of $1 million or more shall be issued with respect to a donation unless the conservation value of the donation has been verified by the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, based on the criteria adopted by the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation for this purpose. Such criteria and subsequent amendments shall be exempt from the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.), but the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation shall provide for adequate public participation, including adequate notice and opportunity to provide comments on the proposed criteria. The Director shall act on applications within 90 days of his receipt of a complete application and shall notify the taxpayer and the Department of Taxation of his action.

b. For purposes of determining whether a credit requires verification of the conservation value, the credits allowed under this article with respect to donations of any other portion of a recorded parcel of land within the preceding 11 years shall be aggregated with the credit claimed for the current donation. This subdivision shall not apply if (i) all owners of the parcel who have been allowed credit for a qualified donation are not affiliated with the person or entity seeking credit for the current donation of a different portion of the parcel and (ii) in the case of an individual seeking credit, the individual has not previously made a qualified donation for any portion of the parcel and is not an immediate family member of any such owners.

c. If (i) the real property that is the subject of the donation was partitioned from or part of another parcel of land and any other portion of such parcel, or any land partitioned from such parcel of land, has been allowed a tax credit under this article (or an application for tax credit is pending) within three years of such donation and (ii) the tax credit that would otherwise be allowed to the donor for such donation is at least $250,000, then no credit under this article shall be issued with respect to such donation described in clause (i) unless the conservation value of the donation has been verified by the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The Director shall act on applications within 90 days of his receipt of a complete application and shall notify the taxpayer and the Department of Taxation of his action. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed or interpreted (a) as allowing additional tax credit for any land or interest in land previously conveyed for which tax credit has already been allowed under this article or (b) affecting the validity of any tax credit allowed under this article for a prior conveyance of any land or interest in land.

4. a. Tax credits shall be issued on a calendar year basis, and in no case shall the Department issue more than the maximum allowed for the calendar year. The maximum amount of credits that may be issued in a calendar year shall be $100 million plus any credits previously issued under this article but subsequently disallowed or invalidated by the Department. Credits previously issued but subsequently disallowed or invalidated shall be reissued in a subsequent calendar year. All credits shall be issued in the order that each complete application is filed. For filings by mail or a recognized commercial delivery service, the postmark or confirmation of shipment shall determine the date of filing. If within 30 days after an application for credits has been filed the Tax Commissioner provides written notice to the donor that he has determined that the preparation of a second qualified appraisal is warranted, the application shall not be deemed complete until the fair market value of the donation has been finally determined by the Tax Commissioner. The Tax Commissioner shall make a final determination within 180 days of notifying the donor, unless the donor has filed an appeal. The donor shall have the right to appeal any decision of the Department in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18 (§ 58.1-1800 et seq.). If more than one complete application is filed at the same time, the credits with respect to those applications shall be issued in the order that the conveyances were recorded in the appropriate circuit court of the Commonwealth. In the event that a credit requires verification of the conservation value by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and such verification has not been received at the time the maximum $100 million allowed is reached for the calendar year of the donation, such credit shall not be issued for that calendar year but shall be issued in the calendar year that the conservation value of the credit is verified by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

No credit shall be allowed for any land or interest in land conveyed on or after July 1, 2015, unless a complete application for tax credit with regard to the conveyance has been filed with the Department by December 31 of the year following the calendar year of the conveyance. For filings by mail or a recognized commercial delivery service, the postmark or confirmation of shipment shall determine the date of filing. Solely for purposes of this condition, any application for which the Tax Commissioner has given written notice to the donor that the preparation of a second qualified appraisal is warranted shall be deemed timely filed, provided that the application was otherwise complete as of such filing deadline.

b. Beginning with calendar year 2008, the $100 million amount contained in subdivision 4 a shall be increased by an amount equal to $100 million multiplied by the percentage by which the consumer price index for all-urban consumers published by the United States Department of Labor (CPI-U) for the 12-month period ending August 31 of the preceding year exceeds the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending August 31, 2006.

c. Beginning with calendar year 2015 and ending December 31, 2016, the maximum amount of credits that may be issued in a calendar year shall not exceed $75 million. Beginning with calendar year 2017, the maximum amount of credits that may be issued in a calendar year shall not exceed $50 million. In no case shall the Department issue any tax credit for a donation from any allocation or pool of tax credits attributable to a calendar year prior to the year in which the complete tax credit application for the donation was filed.

Beginning with the submission due on or before December 20, 2015, and in each year thereafter, the Governor shall include in "The Budget Bill" submitted pursuant to subsection A of § 2.2-1509 or in his amendments to the general appropriation act in effect submitted pursuant to subsection E of § 2.2-1509 a recommended appropriation from the general fund equal to the difference between the amount calculated pursuant to subdivision b and $75 million for calendar years 2015 and 2016 or $50 million for calendar year 2017 and each year thereafter, but not more than $20 million, to be allocated as follows: 80 percent to the Virginia Land Conservation Fund to be used in accordance with § 10.1-1020, with no less than 50 percent of such appropriation to be used for fee simple acquisitions with public access or acquisitions of easements with public access; 10 percent to the Virginia Battlefield Preservation Fund to be used in accordance with § 10.1-2202.4; and 10 percent to the Virginia Farmland Preservation Fund to be used in accordance with § 3.2-201.

5. a. Any taxpayer that has been issued a tax credit by the Department shall be allowed to use such credit for his or its taxable year that begins in the calendar year for which such credit was issued and for succeeding taxable years in accordance with the 10 consecutive taxable year carryforward provisions of this article, except for any taxpayer affected by the credit limitation for taxable years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2015 and taxable years thereafter. Such a taxpayer shall be allowed to use such credit for his or its taxable year that begins in the calendar year for which such credit was issued and for succeeding taxable years in accordance with the 13 consecutive taxable year carryforward provisions of this article.

b. Any taxpayer to whom a credit has been transferred may use such credit for the taxable year in which the transfer occurred and unused amounts may be carried forward to succeeding taxable years, but in no event may such transferred credit be used more than 11 years after it was originally issued by the Department or in any taxable year of such taxpayer that ended prior to the date of transfer, except for any taxpayer affected by the credit limitation for taxable years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2015 and taxable years thereafter. Such a taxpayer may use such credit for the taxable year in which the transfer occurred and unused amounts may be carried forward to succeeding taxable years, but in no event may such transferred credit be used more than 14 years after it was originally issued by the Department or in any taxable year of such taxpayer that ended prior to the date of transfer.

6. Neither the verification of conservation value by the Department of Conservation and Recreation nor the issuance of a credit by the Department of Taxation shall in any way be construed or interpreted as prohibiting the Department of Taxation or the Tax Commissioner from auditing any credit claimed pursuant to the provisions of this article or from assessing tax relating to the claiming of any credit under this article.

E. In any review or appeal before the Tax Commissioner or in any court in the Commonwealth the burden of proof shall be on the taxpayer to show that the fair market value and conservation value at the time of the qualified donation is consistent with this section and that all requirements of this article have been satisfied.

§ 58.1-513. Limitations; transfer of credit; gain or loss from tax credit.

A. Any taxpayer claiming a tax credit under this article shall not claim a credit under any similar Virginia law for costs related to the same project. To the extent a credit is taken in accordance with this article, no subtraction allowed for the gain on the sale of (i) land dedicated to open-space use or (ii) an easement dedicated to open-space use under subsection C of § 58.1-322 shall be allowed for three years following the year in which the credit is taken. Any building which serves as the basis, in whole or in part, of a tax credit under this article shall not serve as the basis of the tax credit allowed under § 58.1-339.2 for a period of five years following the donation on which the credit is based; and any building which serves as the basis for the tax credit allowed under § 58.1-339.2 shall not serve as the basis, in whole or in part, for a tax credit under this article for a period of five years following the completion of the rehabilitation project on which the credit is based.

B. Any tax credits that arise under this article from the donation of land or an interest in land made by a pass-through tax entity such as a trust, estate, partnership, limited liability company or partnership, limited partnership, subchapter S corporation or other fiduciary shall be used either by such entity if it is the taxpayer on behalf of such entity or by the member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary, as the case may be, in proportion to their interest in such entity in the event that income, deductions and tax liability pass through such entity to such member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary or as set forth in the agreement of said entity. Such tax credits shall not be claimed by both the entity and the member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary for the same donation.

C. 1. Any taxpayer holding a credit under this article may transfer unused but otherwise allowable credit for use by another taxpayer on Virginia income tax returns. A taxpayer who transfers any amount of credit under this article shall file a notification of such transfer to the Department in accordance with procedures and forms prescribed by the Tax Commissioner.

2. A fee of two 2.5 percent of the value of the donated interest shall be imposed upon any transfer arising from the sale by any taxpayer of credits under this article and upon the distribution of a portion of credits under this article to a member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary pursuant to subsection B. Revenues generated by such fees first shall be used by the Department of Taxation and the Department of Conservation and Recreation for their costs in implementing this article but in no event shall such amount exceed 50 percent of the total revenue generated by the fee on an annual basis. The remainder of such revenues shall be transferred to the Virginia Land Conservation Fund for distribution to the public or private conservation agencies or organizations, excluding federal governmental entities, that are responsible for enforcing the conservation and preservation purposes of the donated interests. Distribution of such revenues shall be made annually by the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation proportionally based on a three-year average of the number of donated interests accepted by the public or private conservation agencies or organizations, excluding federal governmental entities, during the immediately preceding three-year period.

D. To the extent included in and not otherwise subtracted from federal adjusted gross income pursuant to § 58.1-322 or federal taxable income pursuant to § 58.1-402, there shall be subtracted any amount of gain or income recognized by a taxpayer on the application of a tax credit under this article against a Virginia income tax liability.

E. The transfer of the credit and its application against a tax liability shall not create gain or loss for the transferor or the transferee of such credit.

F. A pass-through tax entity, such as a partnership, limited liability company or Subchapter S corporation, may appoint a tax matters representative, who shall be a general partner, member/manager or shareholder, and register that representative with the Tax Commissioner. The Tax Commissioner shall be entitled to deal with the tax matters representative as representative of the taxpayers to whom credits have been allocated or transferred by the entity under this article with respect to those credits. In the event a pass-through tax entity allocates or transfers tax credits arising under this article to its partners, members or shareholders and the allocated or transferred credits shall be disallowed, in whole or in part, such that an assessment of additional tax against a taxpayer shall be made, the Tax Commissioner shall first make written demand for payment of any additional tax, together with interest and penalties, from the tax matters representative. In the event such payment demand is not satisfied, the Tax Commissioner shall proceed to collection against the taxpayers in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18 (§ 58.1-1800 et seq.).

Looking at the above code, I am happy this was vetoed.  It's government taking good land away from ever being sold or used again by anyone other than the government.  That is a very bad deal for everyone.  Even though you are the one's ultimately paying for this government land grab, it works against the people and for the government.  Once it's off the market, it stays off the market forever and can not be used.  Very bad idea.  This is just more theft by your government for the government and against the people and at your expense.  Ya gotta thank these mobsters.  

  So you are wondering why we are now calling Terry McAuliffe a mobster?  That is coming in an article very soon showing his ties to the mob whom he hired to gain his seat in the highest office in Virginia.  And it comes from his good friend, John Podesta. 

Zoning Is Theft, Tell Your Elected Officials To Pay Up Or Tear Up The Laws.

Zoning.  The government controls it and they are the ones who have made up the entire system.  Does zoning do anything for "We The People" though?  Why yes it does.  It robs us.  It is an insidious system of theft from the pockets of anyone who wishes to do something with the property they purchase for whatever use they had planned.

  It is nothing more than a socialist construct that allows government, against your rights, to dictate how, what, when and where, you can do something with private property.  Wait, did I say private property?  How can property possibly be private if the government can step in at anytime and tell you what you can and can not do with it?  Someone somewhere is lying to us.  Let's look at the basic definition of zoning to see if we can get a better grasp of what it is supposed to be.

  "Zoning:  The basic purpose and function of zoning is to divide a municipality into residential, commercial, and industrial districts (or zones), that are for the most part separate from one another, with the use of property within each district being reasonably uniform."   http://realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/land-use-and-zoning-basics.html

   Already we have issues with the government determining what can be done with private property.  That means private property is no longer private.  If that is the case, then that means the government has an ownership stake in all property.  If that is the case, and they are saying it is, then the government should also be paying a percentage of taxes on property under your name or entity that you hold property under and the government should be getting bills from you on any and all maintenance and upkeep you do on any property.  When is the last time this has happened?  It hasn't you say?  Why not.

  If the government is going to dictate to you what can be done with property, then the government needs to also step up and start paying their fair share or get out of our way.  Paying for zoning changes and having to go through public hearings for those changes is tantamount to pure theft.  The government is stealing from you and all the rest of us.  It's time to tell the government to get out of our way and stop stealing from us or they better step up and start paying their fair share of all the work and materials we add to any given property.  Tear up the zoning laws.  Stop the theft.  Tell your elected officials to pay up or tear it up.  This is not a government service unless you consider theft of your money a government service.  

Gloucester: Potential Fake Warrant Leads To Potential Continued Harassment By County Officials?

Are Gloucester County officials trying to harass us?  Are they attempting to break the law in order to force us to comply with some hidden agenda they may have of trying to silence us?  We are going to show you a letter county officials recently sent to us and the response back.  Then we are going to show how they obtained access to private property with the use of a highly questionable warrant in debt for some person who does not live on this property and has not been on this property for over 5 years.

Gloucester County Complaint and Response from Chuck Thompson

Above is a copy of the letter sent to CRF Ventures LLC.  This is a 4 page document.  The first two pages contain the alleged county complaint and the last 2 pages are CRF Ventures LLC's response to the county.  Now how did this all come about?

The above is a copy of the Warrant in Debt that a Sheriff's deputy had that he used to intimidate some commercial tenants on the property stating they had to let him onto posted private property because he had this warrant to serve.  He told them, according to their own words, that he would charge them with obstruction of justice, if they did not let him onto the property.

  Here is a major issue.  The person on this warrant, does not and has not lived on this property in over 5 years.  That in and of itself is bad enough, but it gets worse.  The date this was attempted to serve this warrant on the property was two days after the court date listed on the warrant.  There is an arrow to show that the case was being continued on May 22nd 2015 at 9:00 AM in the General District Court.  But the question must be asked.  Where was the original warrant served before the first court date of April 24th, 2015?  It was not served anywhere on anyone on this property.  So why all of a sudden was it attempted to be served on April 26th, 2015 on this property?

  We gave the deputy a very difficult time as we had told him that there was no one here by that name and that he was in fact trespassing on the property.  He said he did not see a sign that said no trespassing.  He drove right by a very large sign that states such and has been there for years.

  Deputy John Doe threw the warrant out his vehicle window at me and said I was served.  He served me knowing full well I can not be mistaken as a female.  But he must be legally blind and he is driving on the roads?  So if the source of the complaint came from Deputy John Doe, it was not valid.  I complained to Sheriff Warren and also explained to Sheriff Warren that his deputy did not know how to conduct a proper service as the deputy failed to sign the back of the Warrant as required by the rules of the court.  (An indication that the Warrant was possibly a fraud just to get on the property?)

  Also, Deputy John Doe, throwing the warrant out his window at me, and it landing on the ground, he littered on private property.  After Deputy John Doe left I contacted Sheriff Warren as already stated and he had another Deputy come out and pick up the original warrant that Deputy John Doe came on the property with.  But not before I made multiple copies of it front and back.

  Deputy John Doe also threatened me with charges of Obstructing Justice.  I know what it lawfully takes to obstruct justice and was not committing any such act, so I told Deputy John Doe he had better look up the code and make sure he fully understands it.  He then threatened to conduct an illegal search and seizure on private property without a warrant to do such.  You bet I gave this guy a very hard time.  So it was not long afterward that the County complaint came in and that looks like its in retaliation to these events of Deputy Jon Doe.

  What was the threat of illegal search and seizure?  He said he was going to run a plate on a vehicle in our driveway to see if the name for the owner of the vehicle came back as a match for the name on the warrant.  (No it did not).  Did he conduct that violation?  I can only imagine that he did.  I can not prove it without records from the Sheriff's office.  I trust that Darrell Warren has taken care of retraining this deputy or getting rid of him.

  Had the name of the owner of the vehicle actually matched, then I would have been possibly guilty of obstructing justice.  If the person actually lived somewhere on this property and I did not inform Deputy John Doe of such, then I may have been guilty of obstructing justice.  Without those two facts, I was being threatened by an armed thug after he was told that the person named on the warrant did not reside here.  That in my book is criminal behavior by someone who is charged with holding higher standards of conduct and is being paid to serve us, not threaten us.

  

Related articles

• Fighting Illegal Traffic Tickets - Virginia (Secrets of the Courts)
• Gloucester, Virginia Zoning For Horses: None By Federal Law
• How To Legally Refuse A Speeding Ticket
• How To Beat The Traffic Ticket Scams In 3 Parts
• Virginia Attorney General; Private Law Firm For State Officials Only?

2014 Anonymous "Important Message To The WORLD, Solution Found

. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Interesting video that is worth the time to watch.  Anonymous is an interesting group and one has to wonder if it's part of the propaganda machine or if they are truly fighting the propaganda machine.  We present this video for your consideration.  We do see value in the information in it but question some areas of it as well.  But again, what is perfect?

Gloucester, Virginia Links and News, GVLN

Voted

Gloucester, Virginia's Best News Source

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Utilities Commission Meeting Minutes, July, 2014
• Government Briefing or Education On Bitcoin and Bitpay Digital Currency
• Gloucester, VA Invitation For Bids, Ruggedized Computers For Police Service, Oct. 2014
• Codex Alimentarius Commission, Is It A Conspiracy?
• Abolish the Economic Development Authority of Gloucester County, Virginia
• Gloucester, VA School Board Meeting For October, 2014: A Must Watch

Gloucester, VA Utilities Commission Meeting Minutes, July, 2014

Gloucester Utilities Committee Meeting Minutes from Chuck Thompson

Here are the meeting minutes from the Gloucester County utilities commission.  Information not readily available to the public in the past.  Through requests we have been able to get county officials to make this information available to the public.  These types of reports help you to understand how your tax money is used.

Gloucester, Virginia Links and News, GVLN

Voted

Gloucester, Virginia's Best News Source

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's Video and Notes March 18th, 2014
• Gloucester, VA Civil War History, Discourse To The Troops
• Abolish the Economic Development Authority of Gloucester County, Virginia
• EDA & Woodville School, Gloucester, Virginia
• Fitch Upgrades Various Gloucester County, VA Ratings; Outlook Stable
• Gloucester's Sensibility Speed Bump (The uncensored version)

Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 13)

By Thomas James Norton

THE CONSERVATION OF SOIL IN FARMING STATES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION

With the trickiness in the use of language which characterized the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and the Bituminous Coal Act (all three held unconstitutional), to make believe that they were not what they were, Congress passed the second AAA and called it an act for "Soil Conservation," proceeding thereunder to irrigate the farming land with money of the taxpayers which it had been prevented by the decision of the Supreme Court from distributing under the first act. The second AAA was as lawless as the first.

For more than a decade Congress has been sending money to the farmers ostensibly to help them conserve their soil, an obligation resting upon them in the first instance, and upon the State when the erosion (or whatever is the matter) is so widespread as to call for the exertion of the police power, of which power the United States has none.

Illegal subsidies to agriculture of appalling magnitude

The magnitude of this drain upon the taxpayers of the country may be understood from the fact that in 1946

202

---

203

Washington gave to the farmers for "soil conservation" $57,000,000.
The total of subsidies to agriculture in 1947, as reported (1948) by the Secretary of the Treasury (p. 429), was $2,299,000,000. Yet in the Presidential campaign of 1948 the candidates of all parties promised the farmer more! The returns indicated that he voted for the party that had delivered.
And that misuse of money favored a powerful voting class who were marketing wheat at $3 a bushel, corn at about the same price, oats at a similar price, and livestock at rates so high that restaurants were charging their patrons $4 for a sirloin steak!
Through the years, $1 a bushel for wheat, 75¢ for corn, and the same price for oats were regarded on the land as good prices.
Of course, as before said, the conservation of soil is none of the business of the United States. It is the obligation of the landowner to take care of his land. He had done that from the time the Pilgrims cleared away the timber in the Massachusetts Colonies. He mastered rivers without knowing that he should have the help of a Big or Little T.V.A., and he opened roads wherever they were needed without a Federal Highway Act.
Why Constitution for independent individual
The men who wrote the Constitution being of that kind, they never gave authority to Congress to take the money of one class by taxation and pass it along with a bow and a smile to another group of great voting power. By Magna Carta their forebears made the King promise to keep hands off industry and trade, except under the necessity

---

204

of war. Hence, the Constitution contains no grant of power to Congress to pass anything of even the remotest resemblance to the National Industrial Recovery Act. And as they extracted a pledge from King John to let trade alone, the Constitution authorizes Congress only to "regulate" commerce carried on by men, not to engage in commerce by any branch of government, or by a Fascist corporation set up by it. The early American tilled his land without expecting any help from anybody, and he had no idea that Government could by either punitive or predatory taxation place any limit on the fruits of his industry. Accordingly, no grant for paternalism or imperialism was given by the Constitution to Congress.
Soil conservation important, but not to Washington
To be sure, the conservation of the soil of the farmer may become in some localities of so burdensome a nature that it ceases to be the obligation of the individual. Where erosion or some other peril is so widely extended and affects so many owners and so much property that it cannot be dealt with successfully by individuals or by a group of them, then it becomes the duty of the State, either to assist in the task of prevention or take it over altogether. But the United States has no police power. And the Tenth Amendment was designed to prevent it forever from usurping any.
"Soil conservation" is a deceiving term, like "commerce" in the National Labor Relations Act. It is a cover for subsidies from the pockets of the country to those on the land, a transfer of money from one class to another which the Supreme Court held could not be made when it pro-

---

205

nounced the first Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional.
As mentioned in a preceding chapter, the farmer has been put in a bad situation by the mismanagement in Government which ballooned his costs and those of everybody else beyond all endurance. But that must be mended by removal of the cause, not by subsidies, which the taxpayers cannot carry indefinitely, even if they were legal.
Procedure provided by Constitution adequate for conservation
In a condition of erosion, or of a "dust bowl," involving several States, they have open to them the "Agreement or Compact with another State" authorized by the closing words of Article I of the Constitution, with "the Consent of Congress." The seven States in the basin of the Colorado River made use of this provision to work out an agreement for a fair division of the valuable water of that stream. So when the erosion or other trouble is beyond the ability of the landowner, it becomes the duty of the State to take hold. And when the difficulty belongs to more than one State, there is a constitutional way to solve the problem.
But the subject is as far beyond the constitutional field of Congress as are the sands of the Sahara.
On July 22,1947, the Associated Press reported that the House of Representatives "had voted twice to eliminate the benefit-payment program for 1948 and sharply cut back payments on this year's crops." The Senate-House conference group agreed "to continue the main farm program into 1948." In addition to that, it agreed to a fund of $265,000,000 "to make the benefit payments and meet other costs of the farm crop program on the 1947 crop."

---

206

The "other costs" were $24,000,000 to pay the bureaucrats "for expenses of farmer committeemen who plan and check the programs"!
The farm bill compromise would provide $960,000,000 "for agricultural purposes during the fiscal year 1948 in comparison with last year's expenditures of $2,275,000,000" President Truman asked for $1,188,000,000.
National government without feeling for taxpayers
The disrespect for the rights and property of the people in general, in order to favor highly organized voting groups, is, in addition to being unconstitutional, morally wrong. In the Congress for the last decade and a half, in the White House, in the legislatures, in the city councils, everywhere in public office where there is authority to spend, there has developed, through indifference or incompetence of those who should have been on guard, the grossest unconcern for the taxpayer. As a capital illustration of this, there is cited the veto by the President of a tax-reduction bill passed by the new Congress in 1947 which had been voted into power on a platform promising relief from exorbitant taxation.^[1]
In the concluding chapter of this work it is shown that we must take the President out of this kind of politics by returning to the strictest observance of the method of election prescribed by the Constitution.

---

1. The ruthless course of the Government at Washington respecting the taxpayers brings to mind the denunciation by Saint Simon of the Bourbon monarchy, which brought on by taxes the French Revolution, that it "has scourged, rather than governed, the state."

From the fine folks over at Barefoot's world.  
http://www.barefootsworld.net/
Pay a visit to them.  It's a great site.

Liberty?  You have the right to complain.  Nothing more.

That right too will soon end.

Related articles

• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 12)
• Lets Set The Record Straight On Constitutional Preeminence!
• A Mind Bending Trip to The Dark Side
• Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic - Bill Gates, Rockefeller & The GMO Giants Know Something We Don't
• Is Our Constitution Outdated ? By; Sue Long
• FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 49. Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention.