E90Post
 


GTB Performance
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion > F the IRS! Im going to stop paying Income Taxes!



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-26-2007, 07:19 PM   #23
SOLOx1
Infamous
 
SOLOx1's Avatar
 
Drives: stoned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: KR

Posts: 65
iTrader: (0)

if he's prepared enough and know the things that are talked about in the video, he will win his case in court
SOLOx1 is offline   South Korea
0
Reply With Quote
      06-26-2007, 07:27 PM   #24
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

I wouldn't mess with the Gov't.
Especially now when the Monkey is throwing over a Billion a day for the Iraq shit and other adventures... They will chase you if you stiff them...
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-26-2007, 07:37 PM   #25
Revlis
Now With 33% MORE Sarcasm Free!
 
Revlis's Avatar
 
Drives: 335is
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle Area, WA

Posts: 3,446
iTrader: (0)

Umm...Yeah...
Attached Images
 
__________________

'13 TiAg over Coral, 335is | DCT | Prem | L7 | Nav/Idrive | CA | 19" "-------"

A BMW is Just a Car, it doesn't make you smart, handsome, cool, or wealthy. Get over it.
Revlis is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-26-2007, 08:24 PM   #26
chicagolab
Lieutenant
 
chicagolab's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 330i 2006 TiAg
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago

Posts: 407
iTrader: (7)

let us know how it goes when you stop paying income taxes for a few years
__________________

E90 330i | Titanium Silver | Black/Aluminum | Step | Idrive | Sunshades | PDC | Heated Seats | M3 Lip | Roof Spoiler | Front Splitters | Lux 5.0 | Blacklines
Link to my European Delivery write up:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=143486
chicagolab is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-26-2007, 08:40 PM   #27
E90Boy
Captain
 
E90Boy's Avatar
 
Drives: 14 F33
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Boston

Posts: 655
iTrader: (4)

Don't quote me on this, but I heard in some state you don't have to pay income tax, maybe Nevada.
E90Boy is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-26-2007, 08:58 PM   #28
Carnage
Lieutenant General
 
Carnage's Avatar
 
Drives: people insane
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: classified

Posts: 16,404
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLOx1 View Post
i didnt see this post till now.

The U.S. Constitution allows two types of taxes, direct and indirect. The Constitution says a direct tax must be apportioned, meaning divided equally amongst the people. It also says indirect taxes must be uniform throughout all the states and cannot change from person to person. Indirect tax is an excise tax, which can be avoided. Cigarette taxes and gas taxes are an example. You can choose to avoid them by not smoking and by riding a bike to work. The income tax being applied now does not meet the criteria of either direct or indirect taxes.

The 16th amendment did not impose any new taxes and did not change any taxes that were originally in the constitution. Congress tried to enact an income tax in 1894 and the Supreme Court deemed it was unconstitutional. They tried again in 1913 and the Supreme Court said the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation. If they didnt have it then, and they didnt get it, then they dont have it. There is no constitutional basis for tax on wages of americans working in the United States.

btw the homo comments make you seem childish and retarded.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You're wrong, Your're wrong. You're wrong.

It is true that there is an apportionment requirement in the Constitution for “direct taxes,” but the 16th Amendment clearly eliminates the apportionment requirement from all taxes on incomes. "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.”"

Following the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress enacted a general income tax, and the constitutionality of that tax was challenged once again, but in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, the Supreme Court held unanimously that the income tax was constitutional because “in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.”

In Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174, the Supreme Court stated the following, "“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 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. 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.’”

Bitch about it all you want but a) you will pay income tax or b) you will go to prison.
Carnage is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-26-2007, 08:59 PM   #29
Carnage
Lieutenant General
 
Carnage's Avatar
 
Drives: people insane
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: classified

Posts: 16,404
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLOx1 View Post
if he's prepared enough and know the things that are talked about in the video, he will win his case in court
all these people thought that too...

Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161, 174 (1976); United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927); Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1916); Planned Investments, Inc. v. United States, 881 F.2d 340, 343-344 (6th Cir. 1989); Roat v. Commissioner, 847 F.2d 1379, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988); Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 1984), affg. an unreported order of this Court; Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988); Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403 (1984); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027, 1029-1030 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983).
Carnage is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-26-2007, 09:02 PM   #30
Carnage
Lieutenant General
 
Carnage's Avatar
 
Drives: people insane
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: classified

Posts: 16,404
iTrader: (2)

funny thing is most of the people who have put out this crap are people who have spent time in prison or are in prison for guess what, tax fraud and other tax related crimes. Their own arguments don't even work for them.
Carnage is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-29-2007, 05:17 PM   #31
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
If it would really work for you to not pay your taxes and if the law were on your side, it would take very little time before the workaround would be closed. There is too much money and power at stake for it not to be so. Just pay your taxes, shelter what you can, and vote for less taxes.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-29-2007, 05:26 PM   #32
gum5h03
Galactic Emperor
 
gum5h03's Avatar
 
Drives: Fast
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: WA

Posts: 801
iTrader: (3)

only one way to avoid income taxes... incorporate ; but then they just screw you for B&O taxes.
gum5h03 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-03-2007, 07:16 AM   #33
SteveMD
Colonel
 
SteveMD's Avatar
 
Drives: '12 X5 50i, '11 GTI DSG
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Raventown!

Posts: 2,391
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2012 X5 50i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by gum5h03 View Post
only one way to avoid income taxes... incorporate ; but then they just screw you for B&O taxes.
That's a simplification to say the least. If you have regular employment i.e another boss, how is forming a business going to let you pay less tax?

Unless you pay yourself under the table through your own business, you will still have to pay taxes on your income. If you don't show an income, you may well have to explain why. Furthermore, your business will have to pay tax on your income. Furthermore, your business will have to pay on any profits realized by your company.

Don't get me wrong, I am a business owner of 22 years, there are definitely benefits but simply forming an LLC on the face of it, isn't going to result in you playing less taxes.

And to the OP, don't believe everything you see on the interwebs. It has been tried again and again. The dude always ends up in jail.
__________________
2006 E90 330i (retired)
2009 E90 335i (retired)
2012 E70 X5 50i M Sport, JB Stage 1, 4.6 secs 0-60.
2011 VW GTI/DSG
SteveMD is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-03-2007, 11:56 AM   #34
Zephyr15
Second Lieutenant
 
Zephyr15's Avatar
 
Drives: '07 e90 335i
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NJ

Posts: 296
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnage View Post
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You're wrong, Your're wrong. You're wrong.

It is true that there is an apportionment requirement in the Constitution for “direct taxes,” but the 16th Amendment clearly eliminates the apportionment requirement from all taxes on incomes. "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.”"

Following the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress enacted a general income tax, and the constitutionality of that tax was challenged once again, but in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, the Supreme Court held unanimously that the income tax was constitutional because “in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.”

In Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174, the Supreme Court stated the following, "“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 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. 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.’”

Bitch about it all you want but a) you will pay income tax or b) you will go to prison.
Excellent rebuttal.
Zephyr15 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-06-2007, 10:34 AM   #35
e90owner1
Private First Class
 
e90owner1's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: candyland

Posts: 175
iTrader: (2)

indeed, owned.
e90owner1 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-06-2007, 10:47 AM   #36
younghov85
Captain
 
Drives: 2006 E90 black 325
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lanham, Maryland

Posts: 890
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to younghov85
In the Constitution it states that there must not be taxation without representation.
younghov85 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-06-2007, 11:05 AM   #37
DasBlitz
Major
 
DasBlitz's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw 328i 07
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: new england

Posts: 1,140
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2007 328i  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to DasBlitz
The law was wrongfully ratified and still techniqually is not a law. It has been shown that ones labor is not supposed to be taxed.

Granted you can prove it is wrong, but then again police have beat people and it has proven on video. But because of little things they got off. It's called life and it sucks.

There is a guy in New Hampshire in his home, pretty soon the feds are going to get him. If they don't then follow in his footsteps.

Thankfully no one has brought up "if you dont pay your taxes dont drive on my roads etc." Income tax does nothing for your community. It goes towards our defense and such. And even that isnt a great amount. Accountants have shown that if it were elminated our country would be fine with all the other trillions of dollars we make.
__________________
DasBlitz is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-06-2007, 11:41 AM   #38
La Verdad
Private First Class
 
La Verdad's Avatar
 
Drives: 2007 328i
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ft. Lauderdale

Posts: 144
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by E90Boy View Post
Don't quote me on this, but I heard in some state you don't have to pay income tax, maybe Nevada.
Seven states have no state income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. Two others, New Hampshire and Tennessee, tax only dividend and interest income.
La Verdad is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-06-2007, 11:42 AM   #39
La Verdad
Private First Class
 
La Verdad's Avatar
 
Drives: 2007 328i
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ft. Lauderdale

Posts: 144
iTrader: (0)

Basically, it is like this:

Argument against Federal Income Tax...

Arguments made by tax protesters generally fall into several categories: that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified; that the Sixteenth Amendment does not permit the taxation of individual income, or particular forms of individual income; that other provisions of the Constitution such as the First, Fifth, or the “Missing Thirteenth Amendment” eliminate an obligation to file a return; that citizens of the states are not also citizens of the United States; that the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant to their constitutional taxing power are defective or invalid; and that the government and the courts engage in various conspiracies to conceal the above deficiencies.

In another Seventh Circuit case, the Court observed:

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. “Tax protesters” have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead — so tax protesters think — to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes

Rebuttal:

Federal courts have consistently rejected such arguments as frivolous. The Internal Revenue Service assesses tax penalties against taxpayers who file what it considers to be “frivolous” returns with tax protester arguments. Returns that include a defaced jurat embodying the oath verifying the truthfulness of the statements made on the return are almost certain to incur this penalty.

For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered “objectively reasonable” in this circuit:
(1) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;
(2) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional generally;
(3) the belief that the income tax violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;
(5) the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;
(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and
(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income.
La Verdad is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-06-2007, 11:46 AM   #40
!Xoible
Banned
 
Drives: ....
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: .

Posts: 46,037
iTrader: (4)

Garage List
2008 M3  [3.50]
2007 335i  [4.50]
2008 528i  [4.00]
2006 Infiniti - G35 ...  [4.00]
hey, have fun!! write us from there... and oh, dont forget to wear a chastity belt
!Xoible is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-06-2007, 12:03 PM   #41
Carnage
Lieutenant General
 
Carnage's Avatar
 
Drives: people insane
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: classified

Posts: 16,404
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DasBlitz View Post
The law was wrongfully ratified and still techniqually is not a law. It has been shown that ones labor is not supposed to be taxed.
Nice try but this is just one of the many frivolous arguments that are brought up and continuously shot down by the courts.

Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say how the ratification process should be tracked so we know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments, Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified. Congress proposed the 16th Amendment on July 12, 1909, and, on February 3, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox certified that it had been ratified.

The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained and refuted in U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986),...

“Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void."

“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders."

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so."

“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”

In addition, it has also been claimed that the votes of Georgia legislature were recorded incorrectly and that Georgia actually rejected the amendment, contrary to Knox’ report. No Congressman or other officials from Georgia have ever complained about the “error” and, even if there was an error and Georgia did not ratify the amendment, there would still have been thirty-seven ratifications, one more than the thirty-six required. (Article V of the Constitution requires that amendments to the Constitution be approved by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, and there were forty-eight states in 1913.)

Another claim is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by several states was invalid because the constitutions of those states prohibited an income tax.

A similar argument as to the 19th Amendment has been flatly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court...."The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.”
Carnage is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-06-2007, 12:11 PM   #42
gum5h03
Galactic Emperor
 
gum5h03's Avatar
 
Drives: Fast
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: WA

Posts: 801
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMD View Post
That's a simplification to say the least. If you have regular employment i.e another boss, how is forming a business going to let you pay less tax?

Unless you pay yourself under the table through your own business, you will still have to pay taxes on your income. If you don't show an income, you may well have to explain why. Furthermore, your business will have to pay tax on your income. Furthermore, your business will have to pay on any profits realized by your company.

Don't get me wrong, I am a business owner of 22 years, there are definitely benefits but simply forming an LLC on the face of it, isn't going to result in you playing less taxes.

And to the OP, don't believe everything you see on the interwebs. It has been tried again and again. The dude always ends up in jail.
It wasn't meant to be a lesson in incorporation, just an example of the fact that you really can't get away from Uncle Sam no matter how hard you try. But with that said, you can set up your LLC structure in a way that you don't really pay income taxes, or very minimal. As a corporate officer of your LLC you have to pay yourself a salary; that can be as little as 10k a year if I remember correctly. The rest of the income belongs to "the business" as do all of the assets (house,car, etc.) . The corporate structure I am currently making is similar. The top LLC is a holdings company and has no affiliation with the actual LLC's performing work so it is difficult , if not impossible, to sue it for damages. All assets are owned by the holding company and leased back to myself. So in essence on paper I am only worth the 10k salary I pay myself each year. The rest of the income stays with the business and is taxed as B&O, state income, etc taxes. So my point was that you cannot hope to not pay taxes legally and not end up in pound you in the ass prison with Bubba as your prom date.


All of this is assuming that you do not have any supplemental income (ie steady 9-5'er)
gum5h03 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-06-2007, 12:25 PM   #43
Carnage
Lieutenant General
 
Carnage's Avatar
 
Drives: people insane
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: classified

Posts: 16,404
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by younghov85 View Post
In the Constitution it states that there must not be taxation without representation.
Not only are we represented by the people we vote into office (I'm speaking of Congress here), the power to tax is in the hands of those who represent us (see Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174). In other words since they represent us, we tax ourselves.
Carnage is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-06-2007, 12:42 PM   #44
Josh49
Major General
 
Drives: E90 325xi
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boston, MA

Posts: 6,665
iTrader: (33)

Holy crap. Don't mess with a person who is in between two jobs and has all day to shoot you down..
__________________

E90 325XI, MYSTIC BLUE ON BLACK/ALUM, STEP, NAV, PDC, CWP, XENON, SIRIUS, ALARM, MUD GUARDS, CLEARBRA, CHROME GRILLS AND TIPS, VALENTINE 1 (HARDWIRED), HO CERAMIC 40%, 161'S, REAR FOG MOD, LUX 4.0, BLACKLINES, OEM PEDALS, MTEC FOGS, GRUPPE-M REP INTAKE. 156'S AND RUBBER MATS FOR THE WINTER.
Josh49 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST