31 - 5.6 to 56 for what if I fight this income tax case

[AnitaS]

This Incone Tax situation has been dragging on for years. And every time the Income Tax assessing officer changes and we start from scratch fighting again. It is not my fault but I am losing hope of winning the appeal. If I keep fighting I lose money and if I don't win I lose even more because the fees paid to the CA has been a waste. Plus I pay the huge tax penalty too so I asked what if I continue to fight and got hex 45 lines 5 and 6 moving to 56. What should I do? Should I just pay up? Thank you for your suggestions and happy holidays!

 

[Liselle]

45 is a great effort, in what seems like a foreign land (not surprising that a tax office would feel like that...)

But you asked what to expect if you keep fighting it, and line 5 sounds encouraging to me.

'Gathering together, has a position.
No mistake.
No trust at all.
From the source, ever-flowing constancy.
Regrets vanish.'

That sounds (to me) as if you have a case ("position"), and proceeding is "no mistake" even though you understandably don't trust it at this point. If you keep going ("ever-flowing constancy"), regrets will vanish.

I think line 6 acknowledges how very unpleasant this is and probably will continue to be till it's done. Yi says that's also not a mistake. It might also mean it's not a mistake to make your feelings known. It's okay to complain. Not sure if that means to your friends, or to the tax officials, for instance about having to start over all the time? (Please note I'm not saying go yell at them!)

Disclaimer: if you've posted about this before, I haven't seen any of it. So if this doesn't make sense in the context of other readings, please say so.

 

[AnitaS]

Wow thank you!

 

[Liselle]

Anita, I came here to repeat the caveat about line 6, that it might not mean to complain to the tax office about all the starting over (after all, it's usually best to be very polite and circumspect with people who can ruin your life) - and it turns out your reading can't be 45.5.6 to 56.

Something is wrong.
45.5.6 changes to 35.
45 to 56 has lines 3, 5, and 6 moving.

If it's 45.5.6 to 35, I think it's probably an even stronger endorsement to keep going. "A great effort, advancing." 35 is a gift, an opportunity to be taken advantage of, your day in the sun.

If it's 45.3.5.6 to 56, line 3 says this:

'Now gathering, now lamenting.
No direction bears fruit.
Going on, no mistake.
Small shame.'

I think that might settle it that you should not (not!) complain to the tax office. The way I think I'd see line 3 is like this:

"Now gathering, now lamenting" - a statement of fact, this is a great effort that's unpleasant and causes you to lament (cry, feel overwhelmed and frustrated, gnash your teeth, have doubts).

"No direction bears fruit. Going on, no mistake" - in the context of the rest of the reading, I think this probably means that having no direction bears fruit. Do not try to direct anything. Just go along with all of their nonsense. It has to end sometime.

"Small shame" - if they make you feel shame (or some such negative feeling about yourself), it's only shame, not pitfall. And it's small. You can live with it, especially if you win in the end.

 

[Liselle]

Please tell us what your reading really was, though. Maybe neither of my guesses are right, and it might make everything I've said into rubbish.

 

[AnitaS]

Please tell us what your reading really was, though. Maybe neither of my guesses are right, and it might make everything I've said into rubbish.

Whoops! So sorry Liselle. It was 31 lines 5 and 6 moving to 56! So sorry.

 

[Liselle]

Alright, thanks, I've changed your thread title. Will think about it again.

 

[Liselle]

Preliminary thoughts (don't know if I'll come up with anything else - the wrong reading was easier to figure out, not to mention more encouraging...) -

31 and 56 are each about influence in their own ways. 31's whole point is influence - allowing yourself to be influenced, making space for it (the Image, "A noble one accepts people with emptiness").

56 is kind of anti-influence. A good traveller / visitor / sojourner doesn't try to influence the people he meets in foreign places, and likewise doesn't have to let them change him.

Really not sure what to make of the lines. Line 5 - read Hilary's commentary, if you have her book. If not, I'll try to paraphrase: maybe something like, "If you continue to fight, you'll be setting a firm intention, deliberately turning yourself towards your goal." I think the point is that when you want to go in a direction, the first thing you do is turn your head and shoulders that way. You don't approach it sideways. Maybe 'regrets vanish' because no matter what happens, you'll know you faced it squarely?

Line 6 doesn't have an omen. It just says, "Influence in your jaws, cheeks and tongue" - usually this has seemed to mean just a lot of talking, although people do talk in order to try to influence each other.

I don't know how to apply that. Maybe it's describing what's happened in the past? There's been a lot of talking, but no resolution. From what you said, that's partly because it's always a different person on the other side and all of you have to keep repeating yourselves.

Maybe it could mean whoever succeeds in convincing the other one first, will win? That it depends less on the facts than on how each side is influenced? Not sure that makes sense.

Problem might be if they can play that game longer than you can. You might be more easily influenced than they are. Might be too suspicious, but it's crossed my mind to wonder if maybe that's why they keep changing their representative, to drag it out till you get scared or worn down and give up. That might mean line 5 is them, that this is their deliberate choice, not yours.

(Yi usually talks to the person asking the question, but you didn't ask for advice, what to do, you asked "What if I keep fighting?" Well... "If you keep fighting, they'll keep their heads and shoulders turned firmly in the direction of wearing you down with talk."

I certainly don't know that, it's just a thought.)

What do you think about the merits and facts? Do you think you have a good case? Do you have an attorney? What does he/she think? Could you consult with an attorney, get an objective opinion?

What kinds of cues are there, if any? What hints are you getting from them about what they think their case is? Can you tell at all?

 

[Liselle]

fees paid to the CA

What's a CA?

Is this being done in a court, with a judge? If so I wonder why the judge is letting it drag on. Can't he/she tell the tax office to knock it off with the revolving door of representatives?

 

[AnitaS]

What's a CA?

Is this being done in a court, with a judge? If so I wonder why the judge is letting it drag on. Can't he/she tell the tax office to knock it off with the revolving door of representatives?

Thank you Liselle. You are most kind. CA is Chartered Accountant. The amount is not big enough for the courts so it's the Tax tribunal I have to appeal to. It's normal for assessing officers to get transferred all the time so a new one comes in. I got cheated by the lawyer who handled this case. Albeit an acquaintance! And he complicated things further. Actually I did not need a lawyer only a C A. I was just wrongly advised. Anyway I asked the Yi again - what are my chances of winning this case if I keep fighting and drew 58 lines 1 and 2 moving to 45. Looks positive doesn't it? Perhaps I should start a new thread with 58?

 

[diamant]

what if I fight this income tax case 31.5.6 > 56
They will give up. They will offer you some lies and excuses (as to why they tried to scam you) and they will back off.

what are my chances of winning this case if I keep 58.1.2 > 45
The lines speak of union of cash and preserving cash, so I believe you've got good chances of winning.

 

[AnitaS]

Thank you very much!

 

[Liselle]

Interesting that the "wrong" hexagram from before has shown up.

It does sound promising. Hm. 58 is also about communication.

'Harmonious opening, good fortune.'
'Sincere and confident communication, good fortune.
Regrets vanish.'

This kind of makes me change my mind about the first reading. Wonder what would happen if you just said to them hasn't this spun its wheels long enough, how can we move towards a decision, please? Turn your head and shoulders firmly in the direction of resolution, not just going along with the endless re-starting?

That might run the risk of them saying well, it could be resolved in 5 minutes if you gave up, lady.

I don't know. The lines call for both harmony, and communication that has fu - confidence, sincerity, trust.

The tribunal is supposed to be objective, right? Is it like arbitration? It's just I don't know how to force something like that to do something. I wouldn't figure you're in charge of it. But I have no idea; I've never done it.

Yi says communication, harmony, and firm intent. What could that mean concretely?

Could they just not quite realize how long it's dragged on? They might not feel it like you do, to them it's just a job.

 

[Trojina]

The tribunal is supposed to be objective, right? Is it like arbitration? It's just I don't know how to force something like that to do something. I wouldn't figure you're in charge of it.

Well no I would think a battle with the tax system of one's country is not at all like dealing with 'scams'. They have the power, the law and the lawyers on their side it's hardly an equal fight is it. I mean I don't really understand how you would fight the tax system of any country?

I'm not sure about 31.5 really, there's quite a few takes on it. I recently heard Moss Elk describe it as like a shrug. 31.6 is chatter for no real purpose. I don't think this is going anywhere and it would seem more sensible to pay up but then I'd say that without the reading also. In 56 it's their country or rather their realm not yours, I would think you are in a weak position though I don't know about the tax system in your country but if this battle has gone on for years it must be something they are quite clear about.

If you asked more or less the same question twice really then how can we take the second answer over and above the first?

Could they just not quite realize how long it's dragged on? They might not feel it like you do, to them it's just a job.

But it's the law not just a job, you have to pay tax by law it's not like some private company is it? It just sounds like a complete waste of time fighting it to me, costly too but I don't know how much the sum is you're fighting for.

Is this being done in a court, with a judge? If so I wonder why the judge is letting it drag on. Can't he/she tell the tax office to knock it off with the revolving door of representatives?

Not paying tax is a civil offence, it's against the law and so so why would a judge tell the tax office to stop going after what they believe they are legally owed. It's not a battle between individuals or companies but a battle with the very financial and legal infrastructure of the country surely and so if you're going to take that on you'd have to have a lot of resources to throw at it and may end losing far more than you were chasing in the first place.

 

[Liselle]

I recently heard Moss Elk describe it as like a shrug.

Added to notes


I suppose I was presuming that it's not completely cut and dried in favor of the tax office, or Anita wouldn't have challenged it in the first place. I mean, I wouldn't, unless I thought I had at least one leg to stand on. There can be gray areas in tax law as in other law, I suppose; mistakes can be made, etc. etc.

But I agree it's hard for an individual to take on something like this.

Should mention I've had at least one example of asking a "What are the chances of x happening?" question, getting a seemingly-favorable answer, and the thing not happening. What to make of that? Maybe (1) a "chance" can be a long shot, not a guarantee, (2) the reading described conditions under which it could happen, if the conditions are met, (3) but maybe they won't be.

For what it's worth, I just looked and saw that Bradford Hatcher is pretty negative about both 58.1 and 58.2, bordering on disdainful. I suppose I'm inclined to take that seriously, even though I don't really understand where he gets it from. I mean, he translates 58.2 as -

Trusting joy
Promising
Regrets pass

- which sounds pretty encouraging.

Thinking...

...oh wait. Maybe this is it.

Am looking at his Book 2, the word-for-word translation (click to enlarge):

He includes two parts, the moving line 58.2 (the upper half), and the Xiao Xiang, the Little Image (lower part that I circled in green). I think the Littlel Image is an ancient comment on the moving line.

If you combine them, you could get something like this -

Trusting joy's promise
Regrets vanish

- which, if that's the slightest bit valid to do (I don't know) might have the connotation that if "joy" promises you something, and you trust that - (pause) - the best you'll be able to do is try to let your regrets vanish afterwards, because joy is inherently unreliable. Brad always was very emphatic about keeping the hexagram in mind when interpreting the line text.

This might also tie into the fan yao (17.2):
'Bound to the small child,
Letting the mature man go.'

And also the fact that 58 is the trigram dui doubled , and dui is the youngest daughter. No one would trust a little girl with taxes.

But this is an awful lot of Yi-wringing, isn't it? (And insulting. Brad started it, not me!)

Can we get there without combining separate things? Maybe only by adding a lot of extra words, which Brad doesn't do. Something like this:

Brad's original:
Trusting joy
Promising
Regrets pass

Extra words added:
Trusting joy
(when it is) promising (you something)
[pause to ponder the hexagrams this comes from]
Regrets pass

And then figuring it means what I said above, that if one trusts joy's promises, one will be disappointed.

It might be a better idea to explain it in terms of the hexagrams. The primary hexagram is what you have to work with: 58, Joy, happiness, communicating joy. The relating hexagram, which often describes the querent, is 17, following something. So you're following joy or maybe optimism, maybe rather blindly?

Anita, could it help to think about how you got started down this trail, what made you think you should try?

Maybe think about how poorly "communicating joy" fits with appearing before a tax tribunal? It seems like a mismatch.



But I don't have much experience with 58.2; I don't have a personal sense of how it usually works out in practice. WikiWing has only two very brief examples, and actually neither of them are pleasant...

 

[Liselle]

Not paying tax is a civil offence, it's against the law and so so why would a judge tell the tax office to stop going after what they believe they are legally owed.

For what it's worth I didn't really mean that - you're right, a judge wouldn't. What I meant was the judge recognizing the endless starting over every time the tax people change representatives - telling them to stop doing that. At some point stick with someone so it can get resolved, one way or the other. You'd think "Well we transfer people around all the time" wouldn't be an excuse a judge would have tons of patience with at some point.

(Anita has told us this isn't a court with a judge, but still, isn't someone in charge?)

 

[Trojina]

For what it's worth, I just looked and saw that Bradford Hatcher is pretty negative about both 58.1 and 58.2, bordering on disdainful.

I love Brad's commentaries but disdain seems to colour them a great deal, it's part of the style both rueful and disdainful and often tongue in cheek.

And also the fact that 58 is the trigram dui doubled , and dui is the youngest daughter. No one would trust a little girl with taxes.

Tui is the youngest daughter that doesn't mean she is a little girl. That does seem a stretch. I mean equating Tui with a girl child being bad at taxes.

 

[Liselle]

Probably so.

I wonder if any harm would be done if Anita just pressed to get this to proceed instead of starting over so much? I don't know anything about how these things work, but that just seems ridiculous to me, that they hold cases up for years on the grounds that they transfer people around a lot?

I think I remember Hilary sharing an example once of 58uc for talks that went nowhere. Anita's gotten more-or-less that theme in both readings, 31.6 and 58. A lot of talk. Somehow it has to move past that.