Re: AllYall's Games and lies exposed.

Tell me, what part of the following do you not understand:

H.R.25, Section 101(d):

(1) IN GENERAL- The person using or consuming taxable property or services
in the United States is liable for the tax imposed by this section, except
as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

(2)EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER- A person using or consuming a
taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax
imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the
taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser's
receipt within the meaning of section 510.

It says, (a) the person using or consuming the taxable property or
services - I.E., THE CONSUMER - is liable for the sales tax, unless:
(b) both of the following requirements are met: (i) THE CONSUMER paid the
tax to the seller, and (ii) THE CONSUMER received from the seller a
"purchaser's receipt" as defined in section 510.

What results must necessarily, as a matter of logic, come about under
these provisions? The following:

1) If you buy something, you must pay the sales tax;

2) Your otherwise unconditional obligation to pay the sales tax is
waived, however, if both of the following things happen:
2)a) you actually pay the sales tax to the seller, and
2)b) the seller gives you a receipt that provides all of the information
required under section 510;

3) If you do not actually pay the sales tax to the seller, you are still
liable, unconditionally, for the sales tax;

4) If the seller did not give you a "purchaser's receipt" as defined in
Section 510, you are still liable, unconditionally, for the sales tax.

Now, let's ask a rhetorical question - what's the purpose, the raison
d'etre, for the audit department of any taxing authority? Is it not to
make sure that those who are liable to pay a tax the authority administers
are, in fact, paying the taxes they are obligated to pay? And how does
the audit department of a taxing authority perform its primary function?
Does it ... pull numbers out of its ass? Does it ... consult astrologers?
No (at least not generally); instead, it tries to figure out how to
identify those taxpayers who are more likely than not to attempt to avoid
paying their correct tax liability, and it then goes after those people
and checks their books. In particular, because the taxpayer is the only
person in a position to make sure that correct books are kept, the
auditing department is aided in this endeavor by rules of law (either
statutory or case-law) that provide that the auditor's determination is
presumptively correct, and that in the absence of proof or proper records
from the taxpayer, that the auditor's assessment of a deficiency stands.

Now, since H.R. 25 clearly does not prohibit the auditing of consumers,
and since consumers are clearly taxpayers under Section 101(d), any taxing
authority that is tasked with the job of administering and enforcing the
sales tax is going to (a) attempt to identify those consumers who are most
likely to be evading their proper tax obligations, and (b) is going to
audit those consumers. Now, upon audit, what's going to happen to the
consumer? If the consumer does not have receipts going back for 6 years,
and the auditor can otherwise show that the consumer made a taxable
purchase for which there is no record that the sales tax was paid, the
auditor is going to assess a deficiency for unpaid sales tax on that
consumer. And guess what? Without the necessary "purchaser's receipts,"
the consumer is going to LOSE.

Now, kindly inform us of what particular part of Section 101(d) you do not
understand, 'cause you clearly do not understand it.

.