VAT fraud?
-
@djls45 Oh. Heh.
-
@lolwhat said in VAT fraud?:
@djls45 Yeah, uh, what @blakeyrat said. If property taxes were optional, I wouldn't be paying several thousand dollars a year simply because I own a house...
It's a bit of an involved process, including making sure all loans and liens are paid off and that the assigns back to the original land grant clearly devolve the land to you, but if you get land de-registered with the County Recorder (or equivalent) and/or reclassified as private property, the government cannot tax the land.
-
@djls45 Right, and if the courtroom has a gold fringe on the flag that means it's an admiralty court and they're not actually suing you, they're suing a legal entity that has the same name as you but in all caps and the governments owes you back every dollar of tax they've ever collected.
I learned that from Wesley Snipes.
-
@blakeyrat I don't know what you're talking about, but this is part of the basis for homesteads.
The US government also chose to honor land grants by other governments for land acquired by purchase or war, so old Spanish land grants have full authority if the ownership of the land can be traced back to one.
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
Property tax can only be assessed on commercial property, not private property,
What? Where? Certainly not in Washington State.
Everywhere that is called the United States of America. It's built into the Constitution.
Are you talking specifically about the federal government? The Constitution certainly doesn't limit how states can collect taxes.
-
And for @djls45's just emerging from the 1800's timepod, allodial title is no longer a thing that exists; the homestead exemption has lapsed. And no, that thing in Nevada that they call allodial title doesn't count. It's an opportunity to pre-pay your property taxes, nothing more. Now, over here we have "the internet"...
-
@twelvebaud said in VAT fraud?:
And for @djls45's just emerging from the 1800's timepod, allodial title is no longer a thing that exists; the homestead exemption has lapsed. And no, that thing in Nevada that they call allodial title doesn't count. It's an opportunity to pre-pay your property taxes, nothing more. Now, over here we have "the internet"...
Yeah, that's some serious sovereign citizen crap and completely not true. In fact, it's a good way to end up in state prison. The federal constitution says nothing about what states can or cannot tax. The Federal Government can't do direct taxes on property, but States sure can.
-
@kt_ said in VAT fraud?:
@benjamin-hall said in VAT fraud?:
@kt_ oh, and using a sales-tax-exempt organization's info to buy stuff for personal use is a good way to get the org's status revoked (at least). States and localities take that very seriously, so it doesn't happen on a widespread basis.
Seriously? Like, how are they gonna check that this PC you bought for yourself and wrote off as a business expense was in reality a personal one?
We're not talking about "writing off as a business expense". Writing things off as a business expense is a different story (and is not tax-exempt, btw).
We're talking about using business funds from a tax-exempt org for personal use. Which is tax-exempt, but is also illegal...
-
I don't think it's been stated yet, but iirc the only tax that the Federal government itself collects is Income Tax.
Having said that, as previously mentioned, States (and if allowed by states, Cities) can tax whatever they want. Where I live, all 3 (Federal, State, City) collect income tax, for example.
-
@dragnslcr said in VAT fraud?:
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
Property tax can only be assessed on commercial property, not private property,
What? Where? Certainly not in Washington State.
Everywhere that is called the United States of America. It's built into the Constitution.
Are you talking specifically about the federal government? The Constitution certainly doesn't limit how states can collect taxes.
AIUI, states cannot write laws that contradict the federal constitution; some that have tried were struck down by the Supreme Court. As I mentioned earlier, land that is classified as "residential" is a commercial use, which can be taxed. A lot of people in multiple states have been able to get their land reclassified as private property, so it's not something that is particular by state. Most people in the US aren't able to pay off their mortgages, nor do they know about the laws around private property, which is why I suspect most people don't bother with it.
@twelvebaud said in VAT fraud?:
allodial title is no longer a thing that exists; the homestead exemption has lapsed. And no, that thing in Nevada that they call allodial title doesn't count. It's an opportunity to pre-pay your property taxes, nothing more.
Yeah, Nevada's "allodial" title isn't really allodial; it allows someone to prepay a 5% property tax for the life expectancy of the youngest titleholder and thereby be exempt from any further taxes during that time. It is nearly allodial, though, in that it does provide protections from most methods of seizure of property except forfeiture for criminal conduct.
The fact that the Homestead Acts have expired doesn't mean that true allodial title, land grants, or private property are no longer effective or cannot be gained. It simply means that such can no longer be acquired by their provisions.
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
AIUI, states cannot write laws that contradict the federal constitution; some that have tried were struck down by the Supreme Court.
States cannot write laws that directly contradict certain parts of the US Constitution, mostly (entirely?) the amendments that protect the rights of individuals (speech, religion, due process, equal protection, etc.). Despite what a few idiots like to claim, taxation is not considered a violation of individual rights, and the Constitution doesn't say anything about how states can collect taxes (unless it was something blatantly discriminatory, like having higher income tax rates for people of specific races or religions).
You're going to have to provide some citations for the idea that property taxes are unconstitutional.
-
@dragnslcr I think you're missing what I'm saying. I never said that property taxes are unconstitutional. They can be and are assessed against commercial property. I am saying that an (unapportioned) property tax on private property is unconstitutional (and does not actually exist in the US, to my knowledge). I am also saying that landowners can get out of paying property tax if they can get the land reclassified as private property, because property taxes in the US are use taxes for specific purposes, namely residential, industrial, or agricultural, and private property cannot be taxed without apportionment. I.e. everyone would have to pay the same amount, regardless of location, wealth, position, or other factors, and all private property would be subject to that tax, not just privately-owned land.
US Constitution Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
With the sole exception of
US Constitution Amendment XVI:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Direct taxes are defined in the obiter dicta of Murphy v. IRS and the US by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:
Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation..., (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal property.
-
@djls45 and those sections only bind the federal government. They have no effect on States. There's a doctrine called incorporation which applies certain parts of the federal Constitution against the states. It only covers some of the first 10 amendments. The body of the Constitution (except one section that specifically says it applies to the states) is only for the feds.
Anyone saying such crap is dangerous--listening to them can get you in big trouble.
-
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
Right, and if the courtroom has a gold fringe on the flag that means it's an admiralty court and they're not actually suing you, they're suing a legal entity that has the same name as you but in all caps and the governments owes you back every dollar of tax they've ever collected.
And the Federal Republic of Germany is actually a company founded by the allied forces, and the Reich still exists, but without any official government. Obviously.
Fun fact (for those who don't want to read the Wikipedia article): For legal purposes, despite the previous separation and the change of borders after World War II, the current German state is not a successor state to the Reich, but identical with it. Therefore, those idiots are actually right about one thing.
-
@benjamin-hall Look, I don't think I'm disagreeing with anyone. I'm just trying to clarify what I'm saying because I think several people have misconstrued what I said to be something crazy like "all taxes are EEEvul!"* I don't know of anywhere in the USA that has a tax on owning private property. As far as I know and can tell from the Constitution, such a tax would be illegal unless it was evenly split per person according to the lastest Census. I don't know whether any states have implemented such a direct tax, but I find it unlikely**. If someone has a counter-example, especially if it survived litigation, I would be quite interested. Also from what I have read, land taxes are assessed on commercial property, not private, and "commercial" property includes a category for "residential". Many (most? all?) banks will not approve a home mortgage application based on private land; they require the land to be registered, which also means it is taxable. Again, if there are any counter-examples to any of these that were supported by the courts, I would be interested to see them.
* And, to be fair, some of the info that I found is from crazy, off-the-wall conspiracy theory types. That doesn't mean that all they said was wrong, but that doesn't mean I take all they say at face value, either. Care should be taken to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
** Are there any states where citizens are charged a tax for simply owning something? Private property need not simply be land; it includes everything that is or can be owned by a real person. Are there taxes for simply owning jewelry? Computers? Cars?
-
-
@djls45 yes, there certainly are. At least one state has property taxes on cars (separate from licensing fees).
I still don't understand why you think the federal Constitution has anything to do with state taxes. They're completely separate. States can tax anything that their Constitution says they can. That piece about no direct taxes only applies to the feds. And zoning has nothing to do with anything here. Zoning is a local thing--Houston for example has no zoning ordinance. Being zoned for residential isn't a commercial use that makes the land not private property (and the whole concept of not being able to tax private property is bonkers anyway)
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
Are there any states where citizens are charged a tax for simply owning something? Private property need not simply be land; it includes everything that is or can be owned by a real person. Are there taxes for simply owning jewelry? Computers? Cars?
The usual reason for focusing property taxes on land are that it is usually pretty valuable and isn't possible to move out of the state. Avoiding a land tax is difficult unless the state makes a specific exemption available. Other types of property tax are much easier to lawfully avoid, as they tend to be much more mobile.
It seems from skimming that article that the states don't usually impose a real estate tax, but counties and municipalities and other sub-state entities do. As such entities are entirely subject to the laws of their surrounding state, there's no reason in principle (other than a state's constitution) why a state couldn't tax real estate. They just choose not to, perhaps for good reasons.
The clause in the US Constitution that you've been talking about is one that only applies to the Feds. I guess you could propose an amendment to get it to also apply to the states and their components, but I predict that you'll have immense trouble getting such an amendment passed by any state; they guard their income streams jealously (and the state's political leanings do not appear to be a good predictor of who will most thoroughly resist such an amendment).
-
Wow, didn't even know businesses could get (part of) the VAT they pay refunded.
-
@powerlord said in VAT fraud?:
I don't think it's been stated yet, but iirc the only tax that the Federal government itself collects is Income Tax.
That's most definitely not what I recall. FICA, Medicare, excise taxes, tarrifs. Probably more, but at least those, off the top of my head.
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
AIUI, states cannot write laws that contradict the federal constitution; some that have tried were struck down by the Supreme Court.
Yes, but also remember this bit?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There's a lot of stuff that States are supposed to be able to do (by design of the Constitution) that the Feds aren't.
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
I am saying that an (unapportioned) property tax on private property is unconstitutional (and does not actually exist in the US, to my knowledge)
This is delusional. I cannot imagine what could ever give anyone this idea.
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
Also from what I have read, land taxes are assessed on commercial property, not private, and "commercial" property includes a category for "residential". Many (most? all?) banks will not approve a home mortgage application based on private land; they require the land to be registered, which also means it is taxable. Again, if there are any counter-examples to any of these that were supported by the courts, I would be interested to see them.
You should stop reading whatever it is you've been reading.
-
@boomzilla said in VAT fraud?:
There's a lot of stuff that States are supposed to be able to do (by design of the Constitution) that the Feds aren't.
Emphasis on "supposed". The Interstate Commerce Clause has been abused to devolve pretty much all of those back to the Feds when they want them. :(
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
I don't know of anywhere in the USA that has a tax on owning private property.
I told you one: Washington State.
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
As far as I know and can tell from the Constitution, such a tax would be illegal unless it was evenly split per person according to the lastest Census.
The Constitution applies to interstate matters. States can do whatever the fuck they want inside their own borders, generally. Washington State specifically spits on the Feds regularly, because fuck those assholes, our citizens voted for legalized marijuana and it's fucking legal.
Washington State, BTW, charges the tax based on the (estimated) assessed value of the property. A person with a $5 million house pays a lot more than a person with a $200k house.
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
Also from what I have read, land taxes are assessed on commercial property, not private, and "commercial" property includes a category for "residential".
What does this even mean? What is "commercial" property that is simultaneously "residential"? Do you mean, like, hotels and apartment complexes?
I'd like to refute this point but I can't even understand it.
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
- And, to be fair, some of the info that I found is from crazy, off-the-wall conspiracy theory types.
Only some? I think you're swimming in crazy off-the-wall conspiracy types.
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
** Are there any states where citizens are charged a tax for simply owning something?
Yeah? The State: Washington. The "something": land.
-
@unperverted-vixen Oh, yeah. Big time. But even then, that's letting the Feds to more than they should be, not restricting the States from doing stuff.
-
@boomzilla said in VAT fraud?:
But even then, that's letting the Feds to more than they should be, not restricting the States from doing stuff.
And States have a lot more power than most of them exercise.
When the TSA required all States to re-issue all their driver's licensed with "enhanced security", a few States stood firm and said: "no". (Again, Washington being one of them-- we like to say "fuck you" to the Feds.)
Guess what happened? The TSA backed-down. Granted an "extension". We'll say "no" next time again and, mark my words, the TSA'll back down again. The Feds know they can't get away with prohibiting every citizen of Washington (and a few other) States from getting on airplanes (which is what they were threatening for non-compliance), and Washington knows they know that.
-
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
What does this even mean? What is "commercial" property that is simultaneously "residential"? Do you mean, like, hotels and apartment complexes?
in his bizarro world, any property with a title deed is "commercial", since you can buy and sell it. This includes residential-zoned land upon which houses are built. By going to the county records office, yammering gibberish at the poor secretary until they let you do what you want, and
{$DEREGISTRATION || $LAND_PATENT || $SOV_CITIZEN_BULLSHIT}, you can transform it into "private" property, which magically annuls all government interaction with it.
-
@twelvebaud Oh right. But make sure you bring your own gold fringe, just in case.
But is the owner of the property you, or the guy who has the same name as you (but in all-caps) that the government created out of whole cloth so they could tax him!?
(I love insane free man on the land ideas. Can you tell? I read one article once that claimed the government owed the non-all-caps-imaginary people like $8000/year in taxes, just nobody knows it. Selectively reading the Constitution and conveniently ignoring the part where it says "States can do whatever the fuck they want" is such a free man kind of thing.)
-
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
@twelvebaud Oh right. But make sure you bring your own gold fringe, just in case.
But is the owner of the property you, or the guy who has the same name as you (but in all-caps) that the government created out of whole cloth so they could tax him!?
(I love insane free man on the land ideas. Can you tell? I read one article once that claimed the government owed the non-all-caps-imaginary people like $8000/year in taxes, just nobody knows it. Selectively reading the Constitution and conveniently ignoring the part where it says "States can do whatever the fuck they want" is such a free man kind of thing.)
I assume you've read the Meads v. Meads decision. If you haven't, I think you'd enjoy it. It's about a 187-page breakdown of "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" litigants and the fallacies in all of their arguments by an Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada.
-
@heterodox I think I did years ago, I don't remember it now.
I read a great article years ago that framed it as ancient religious beliefs that magical words or symbols (like the gold-fringed flag) could improve luck and grant supernatural benefits, but cloaked in modern legal jargon. Wish I could at least remember what site that was on...
(No disrespect meant to any Mormons online currently wearing magic underwear. I like Mormons. But the underwear thing is stupid guys.)
-
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
@heterodox I think I did years ago, I don't remember it now.
I read a great article years ago that framed it as ancient religious beliefs that magical words or symbols (like the gold-fringed flag) could improve luck and grant supernatural benefits, but cloaked in modern legal jargon. Wish I could at least remember what site that was on...
(No disrespect meant to any Mormons online currently wearing magic underwear. I like Mormons. But the underwear thing is stupid guys.)
The first part reminds me of D&D players who claim that "the rules" say they can do broken stuff. It's really their screwy interpretation of the rules with heavy magic words emphasis.
The second part (as one of those Mormons) is based on a flawed understanding of the temple garments. The "magic underwear" is a symbol to the wearer of the promises made. It has no power in and of itself. We believe that God will protect those who keep their covenants, though. It's the same as a diploma--it isn't a magical piece of paper that lets you know things, but a symbol (in theory) of what you've learned.
-
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
Guess what happened? The TSA backed-down. Granted an "extension". We'll say "no" next time again and, mark my words, the TSA'll back down again. The Feds know they can't get away with prohibiting every citizen of Washington (and a few other) States from getting on airplanes (which is what they were threatening for non-compliance), and Washington knows they know that.
Yeah, I've seen these signs at airports recently:
But...they're not saying that states have to upgrade their licenses, just that the Feds basically won't accept them any more.
-
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
Also from what I have read, land taxes are assessed on commercial property, not private, and "commercial" property includes a category for "residential".
What does this even mean? What is "commercial" property that is simultaneously "residential"? Do you mean, like, hotels and apartment complexes?
I'd like to refute this point but I can't even understand it.
The commercial aspect of it is the use of government services (land recorder, assessor, public maintenance services, etc.) to do certain things with the property. "Residential" is just one of these use classifications for property. If you get your land deregistered and reclassified as private property instead of any of the "commercial" designations, then you can't use the government services (unless possibly by directly paying for them yourself), but you also won't need to pay the property tax. More properly, it probably should be called a property use tax.
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:** Are there any states where citizens are charged a tax for simply owning something?
Yeah? The State: Washington. The "something": land.
So if I dump a whole bunch of rock and dirt into the ocean within the state's territorial waters to form my own island, I'll suddenly, without doing anything else, be liable for WA property taxes? Or if I move a floating island over the state, am I liable for WA property taxes? Wouldn't I have to register either of those with the Land Office for Washington State before they can be assessed for taxes?
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
Also from what I have read, land taxes are assessed on commercial property, not private, and "commercial" property includes a category for "residential".
What does this even mean? What is "commercial" property that is simultaneously "residential"? Do you mean, like, hotels and apartment complexes?
I'd like to refute this point but I can't even understand it.
The commercial aspect of it is the use of government services (land recorder, assessor, public maintenance services, etc.) to do certain things with the property. "Residential" is just one of these use classifications for property. If you get your land deregistered and reclassified as private property instead of any of the "commercial" designations, then you can't use the government services (unless possibly by directly paying for them yourself), but you also won't need to pay the property tax. More properly, it probably should be called a property use tax.
TDEMSYR. The bolded portion is pure magic words thinking. It doesn't, and can't exist anywhere in the USA. I challenge you to put-up or shut up here. Provide links to any of
- state or federal court cases in which such an action was upheld
- Instructions on a county or state recorder's website on how to perform such an operation,
- or any other reputable non-sovereign-citizen site that makes such a claim.
-
@boomzilla said in VAT fraud?:
@powerlord said in VAT fraud?:
I don't think it's been stated yet, but iirc the only tax that the Federal government itself collects is Income Tax.
That's most definitely not what I recall. FICA, Medicare
Aren't both of those based on income?
excise taxes, tarrifs.
Excises and tariffs (duties) are explicitly listed in the Constitution.
-
@dragnslcr As is an income tax (now, with the amendments). It wasn't originally, but things change (sadly).
-
@dragnslcr said in VAT fraud?:
Aren't both of those based on income?
Yes, so it depends on how we're defining "Income Tax."
-
@twelvebaud said in VAT fraud?:
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
What does this even mean? What is "commercial" property that is simultaneously "residential"? Do you mean, like, hotels and apartment complexes?
in his bizarro world, any property with a title deed is "commercial", since you can buy and sell it. This includes residential-zoned land upon which houses are built. By going to the county records office, yammering gibberish at the poor secretary until they let you do what you want, and
{$DEREGISTRATION || $LAND_PATENT || $SOV_CITIZEN_BULLSHIT}, you can transform it into "private" property, which magically annuls all government interaction with it.That's not what I'm saying. A title deed itself is not "commercial" or "private". It just describes the borders of the land and who owns it. A zoning or land classification of "commercial" means that government services are being used for that piece of property, and since taxes are being spent on that property, it makes sense for taxes to be paid on it, too. A designation of private property means that no government services are being used on that property. I would expect that one of the risks to not having your land registered is that the government cannot defend your ownership of the land from the registration, so any defense would have to devolve to whatever processes are in place to prove ownership of other private property (sometimes described as "personal" property).
-
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
The Feds know they can't get away with prohibiting every citizen of Washington (and a few other) States from getting on airplanes (which is what they were threatening for non-compliance), and Washington knows they know that.
You'll sure be prevented from getting on military bases and many other federal installations though.
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
The commercial aspect of it is the use of government services (land recorder, assessor, public maintenance services, etc.) to do certain things with the property. "Residential" is just one of these use classifications for property. If you get your land deregistered and reclassified as private property instead of any of the "commercial" designations, then you can't use the government services (unless possibly by directly paying for them yourself), but you also won't need to pay the property tax. More properly, it probably should be called a property use tax.
So what you're saying is that if you take your property and secede from the city, then you don't have to pay property taxes to the city, and in exchange you no longer get any services provided by the city. I will agree with you on that, but good luck getting your state to approve your secession.
-
@heterodox said in VAT fraud?:
@blakeyrat said in VAT fraud?:
@twelvebaud Oh right. But make sure you bring your own gold fringe, just in case.
But is the owner of the property you, or the guy who has the same name as you (but in all-caps) that the government created out of whole cloth so they could tax him!?
(I love insane free man on the land ideas. Can you tell? I read one article once that claimed the government owed the non-all-caps-imaginary people like $8000/year in taxes, just nobody knows it. Selectively reading the Constitution and conveniently ignoring the part where it says "States can do whatever the fuck they want" is such a free man kind of thing.)
I assume you've read the Meads v. Meads decision. If you haven't, I think you'd enjoy it. It's about a 187-page breakdown of "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" litigants and the fallacies in all of their arguments by an Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada.
E_INVALID_JURISDICTION(The arguments themselves probably apply, though, with slight modifications for the jurisdictional differences.)
-
@djls45 Again, that's total and complete woo. Not a single phrase had any meaning outside of sovereign-citizen BS.
Take Houston. It has no zoning or land classifications. Yet people still pay property tax. Because property tax is not based on such things. It has nothing to do with using government services or not. It has to do with how the government decided to gain revenue. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. No amount of magic words will change anything. They just make you look like a nutter.
Again, put up or shut up. Give sources. Reputable sources, like court cases. If this were true, there would be many of them, easy to find.
-
@dragnslcr Although many (most?) property taxes are at the county level, and the entire State is part of a county (by definition). Sometimes cities have additional property taxes, but it's usually a county thing. Except when it's not...taxes are complicated.
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
E_INVALID_JURISDICTION(The arguments themselves probably apply, though, with slight modifications for the jurisdictional differences.)
Since when does "Here's a piece of writing you might find interesting" have a jurisdiction? I'm not partaking in this property tax discussion because it's self-evident which argument is correct; I'm contributing to an off-topic lean like a good WTDWTFer.
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
The commercial aspect of it is the use of government services (land recorder, assessor, public maintenance services, etc.) to do certain things with the property.
So you're using the word "commercial" to refer to exclusively governmental things? Well that's not confusing at all.
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
"Residential" is just one of these use classifications for property. If you get your land deregistered and reclassified as private property instead of any of the "commercial" designations, then you can't use the government services (unless possibly by directly paying for them yourself), but you also won't need to pay the property tax.
Smells like bullshit. What's the form I need to "deregister" my land in Washington State? Link me to it.
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
More properly, it probably should be called a property use tax.
In my State, the tax is based on the assessed value of the land. It doesn't matter if the land is being used for anything or not-- the assessed value considers potential uses also.
(There was a lot of noise a few years back about land that had gain wetland protection but their assessed value hadn't decreased as a result, and how that was unfair, but I haven't heard anything about that in a few years. And also that's more about the implementation of the tax, not the intent.)
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
So if I dump a whole bunch of rock and dirt into the ocean within the state's territorial waters to form my own island, I'll suddenly, without doing anything else, be liable for WA property taxes?
I'm not sure anybody's tried it but I wager: yup.
The only existing examples of artificial islands I'm aware of are in Japan, China and Dubai. In China and Dubai I have no clue if that land would be taxed, but you can bet your ass the Japanese government is taxing the operations of its artificial island airport.
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
Wouldn't I have to register either of those with the Land Office for Washington State before they can be assessed for taxes?
I mean, bureaucrats are pretty stupid, but most of them would be able to see with their eyes an artificial island in their state's territorial waters. Not to mention they have resources like the military's surveys. So I think they'd figure it out eventually.
Edit: Damn, I just went on topic at hand just when I said I wasn't. But we're still off topic from the OP, so maintaining the proud tradition nonetheless.
-
@dragnslcr said in VAT fraud?:
Aren't both of those based on income?
They're based on income, but the're not called "income tax" here in the US.
When people say "income tax" they refer to the tax that requires a yearly IRS filing. It's a language-use thing.
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
That's not what I'm saying. A title deed itself is not "commercial" or "private". It just describes the borders of the land and who owns it. A zoning or land classification of "commercial" means that government services are being used for that piece of property, and since taxes are being spent on that property, it makes sense for taxes to be paid on it, too. A designation of private property means that no government services are being used on that property. I would expect that one of the risks to not having your land registered is that the government cannot defend your ownership of the land from the registration, so any defense would have to devolve to whatever processes are in place to prove ownership of other private property (sometimes described as "personal" property).
Please have a residential hat:
-
@djls45 said in VAT fraud?:
A zoning or land classification of "commercial" means that government services are being used for that piece of property,
But if it's zoned as "residential", there's no sewer or water or electricity?
You're saying stuff that's completely false on the face of it, this is total conspiracy theory zone here.
Property tax in the United States - Wikipedia
