OCR Text |
Show The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand November 29, 1973, The Utah Independent, Page 5 ON COURSE REVOLUTIONARIES WITH GUNS Continued from page 3 the material resources, the right to ownership and control of private property is destroyed. The denial of the right to ownership and control of private property has been the cornerstone of every dictatorship we have seen in this the Nazis, Fascists and Communists. This century should be a sobering thought to all Americans as the politicians and bureaucrats prepare to impose these dictatorial controls upon us. "From The American Riflemen," P0L,TCAL MOTIVATIONS FOR RATIONING'. Marxist-Lenini- There is a great motivation for the politicans and bureaucrats to impose rationing. It is power! And power seems to be what they want most of all. Fuel is the lifeblood of all America. Without fuel our industries cannot function. Fuel rationing and price controls, all administered dictatorially by the President, gives the President life and death control over all American industry. In short, it puts every business at the complete mercy of Richard Nixon. In view of Mr. Nixon's ruthless exercise of power, this is a most frightening thought. ARE THERE , Marxist-Leninis- REPRESENTATIVES IN WASHINGTON? There are a few senators and congressmen with common sense. Unfortunately, they are in the minority at this time. During the debate on mandatory fuel allocation. Senator Jesse A. Helms, announced that he was offeringan amendment to the bill to stop busing of school children. This would result in substantial fuel savings, said the senator. This bit of logic so surprised the politicians they had to recess for two hours. What we really need is not fuel rationing but a few more good senators like Jesse Helms. R-N.- self-defens-e, C., - law-abidi- Counsel to the Taxpayer IRS Loses Fifth Bid For Internal Revenue Service officials say they always interpret tax laws with fairIs this ness. to taxpayers. true? Q. No. A. IRS lawyers often over the Internal Revenue Code looking for opportunities to construe the law so that taxpayers will lose deductions, credits or other benefits that Congress has given them. This forces taxpayers into expensive court battles to maintain their rights. Those who .cant afford to fight simply lose their rights A striking example is the IRS interpretation of code section J72(b). This law says that if you have a net operating loss in inany year instead of net come, you may deduct the loss (with some adjustments) in other years. Its a relief provision designed to help people who have suffered financial setbacks. pore- - Lost Five come. He then carried the remaining part of his loss, $109,628, and deducted part of it in a net operating loss any year even though youre not running your own business, if you sffera theft or casualty loss that exceeds your salary or other income. This can happen if somebody robs your home while youre on vacation, for example, or if your house bums down, or if any other casualty befalls you. IRS has construed section 172(b) in an amazing manner. The interpretation is so straift-e- d, so grossly unfair, that IRS has lost five straight court tilts over it, without a single win. Still, IRS sticks to its guns. And you can have By E. EDWARD STEPHENS years subsequent to carry over from 1964. Reason: He had a net longterm capital gain of $2,074,-06- 6 in 64 in addition to his ordinary income. IRS said this capital gain absorbed the remainder of Axelrods $5,000 ;967 loss, $109,628. Judge Featherston turned He said the thumbs down. with its stick Tax Court will 1969 decision, Chartier Real Estate Co., in which Judge Arnold Raum flatly rejected the IRS interpretation of code section 172(b). Raums decision fith defeat occurred Aug. 28, when Tax Court Judge C. Moxley Featherston spanked IRS and plumped for the taxpayer, Sidney Axelrod IRS court decisions, he carried back his $114,628 loss, used it to wipe out his $5,000 ordinary taxable income for 1964, and got a refund of the tax he had paid on his 1964 ordinary in-- This relief is aimed at millions of taxpayers. You can haev a net operating loss any year if youre in business for yourself. 10-- -. interest on $500 - minimum 6 months i i 9 . interest on $50 - minimum 3 months ALL by silver and gold i savings are backed 100 i withdrawals customers may make currency, silver or gold ALL in SECURE SAVINGS (9:30 to 5:00 P.M.) L 3443 South State, Suite 15 , Salt Lake. City, Utah 84115 5 (801) 262-927- 1970 by the was affirmed in First Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals in Boston. All Out for Victory IRS was flying in the face of two other decisions rejecting its section 172(b) con- struction. On Aug. 8, Tax Court Judge William H. Quealy sided with the Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia Corporation. And last year, the U. S. District Court at Seattle deckled in favor of the Olympic Foundry Co. IRS appealed to the Ninth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, where this latter case now is pending. IRS very likely will appeal the decisions of Judge Featherston and Judge Quealy. If J z or case, and Save! so. Featherstons will go to the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, and Quealys will go to the Fourth Circuit in Richmond. IRS is going all out for a victory in one of the circuits, thus creating a conflict with the adverse First Circuit decision in the Chartier case. Such a conflict probably would throw the issue into the U. S. Supreme Court. Such legal battles are mighty rough on harried taxpayers who get caught in the IRS meat grinder. In flagrant cases like these, the government should be required to pay the taxpayers expenses, including the usual b one, his attorneys fee. Unfortunately, Tax Court judges now have no power to make IRS pick up the tab. Snow White . Buy by the dozen ng 'Unfair' Verdict Sat. Available Mon. Wholesale prices. of Columbus, Ohio. Axelrod had a 1967 net operating loss of $114,628. Following the code and prior . 1964. IRS officials balked. They said Axelrod had nothing to Thumbs Down Straight m ed AND SANE SENATORS ANY While Communist" leaders and their henchmen or unwitting tools continue to demand that U. S. citizens give up their guns, a Communist organization that favors shooting its way to power has expanded and quietly armed its members. The FBIs annual report, released this winter, reveals that the Revolutionary Union (RU) has now spread to 10 States... RU members have been accumulating weapons while engaging in firearms and guerrilla warfare training. The RU was formed in San Francisco five years ago by young radicals who spilt away from the. older Communist Party, USA, and the Progressive Labor st Party (PLP), a newer group. still semicovert a in fashion, the FBI reported, the RU Although operating does not conceal its objectives to smash the existing state apparatus (U.S. Government) through organized armed struggle and to establish a new as developed by revolutionary organization based .upon Chairman Mao Tse Tung. (FBI Annual Report, Dec. 12, 1972, p. 27.) The RU developed after some younger radicals grew impatient with the oldline Communist Party, USA, which still quaintly nominates Communist candidates for the U. S. Presidency, and Vice Presidency and says little or nothing these days about overthrowing the government by violence. But some still farther left in the RU want to speed up movements for violent revolution. A minority faction in this frame of mind broke away from the RU to form the Castro-labellVenceremos (We will win) organization. By early 1971, many RU members enrolled in this group with the avowed goal of eliminating U. S. imperialism by force of arms. Every member (of Venceremos) is required to learn to operate and service weapons, to have arms available, and to teach the oppressed methods of armed and organized the FBI report said. While still consolidating in northern California, Venceremos is making efforts to expand to the East Coast . . . there are Naturally, the Revolutionary Union, Venceremos and the rest would like to other Communist or Marxist movements afoot in the land disarm as many American gun owners as possible. citizens That, in fact, is just what additional gun laws directed at do. They do not seem to disarm criminals or radicals. But they do very often affect good Americans who obey the law. More and more sincere American lawmakers have come to recognize the alarming element of national suicide inherent in gun laws that disarm good citizens. That is why such measures often get rejected these days. Salt Lake City (801)262-545- 4 Eggs |