"Show me the law that makes the Federal income tax legal"

[parky76]

So, my nutty friend is now peddling "Freedom to Fascism" on his Facebook page. And I guess the key to this movie is "what law makes the federal income tax legal?"

if you watch the movie, the answer is clearly "no law!! its illegal!!"

then, I did something no one who believes in this...has ever tried before.

I did a Wiki search for the Federal income tax.

What did I find? I found the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Internal Revenue Code.

The 16th Amendment has been ratified by I believe 40 states. That makes it LAW. It legalized a Federal income tax.

The Internal Revenue Code, was written by Congress. It is LAW. It spells out how the Federal income tax will work.

So there, two laws that make the income tax legal. Why is what I did sooooooo very hard for them?

[LightinDarkness]

You expect conspiracy theorists to do real research? Then they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists.

Given that CT logic is so similar and elementary, I would bet the claim is that the 16th amendment was somehow not "legally" ratified. We all know it was, but you know thats going to be the excuse.

[Hans]

One excuse I heard was that there was no law so that when the 'revolution' comes the congress and senate could declare they hadn't pass any such law and that people who were paying were doing so voluntarily....

[Horatius]

One excuse I heard was that there was no law so that when the 'revolution' comes the congress and senate could declare they hadn't pass any such law and that people who were paying were doing so voluntarily....



This is it. They latch onto the concept of "Voluntary Compliance" to suggest that there is nothing that requires you to pay tax. Completely ignoring the fact that that isn't what it means.

[parky76]

The IRS has a lovely site that debunks many of the tax-protestor myths:

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

This link is also great:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

[ktesibios]

Your one-stop debunking shop for all the tired-out, warmed-over bulldada that CTers spew about the income tax:

Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)

Incidentally, Parky, I think you have the purpose of he 16th Amendment a bit wrong. Congress didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to impose a tax on income; the amendment simply removed the requirement that as a "direct" tax it be apportioned among the states, whatever the Heck that means.

[parky76]

Your one-stop debunking shop for all the tired-out, warmed-over bulldada that CTers spew about the income tax:

Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)

Incidentally, Parky, I think you have the purpose of he 16th Amendment a bit wrong. Congress didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to impose a tax on income; the amendment simply removed the requirement that as a "direct" tax it be apportioned among the states, whatever the Heck that means.

gotcha. either way, it is an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which makes it clear...that the Federal income tax is the law of the land.

[defaultdotxbe]

the way i look at it is if its really proven the 16th amendment wasnt properly ratified (i think the argument is the amendment was ratified in 2 states based on a draft of the bill and not the final revision) they would just put it to a second legislative vote and it would pass a second time with little to not opposition

[3bodyproblem]

This is it. They latch onto the concept of "Voluntary Compliance" to suggest that there is nothing that requires you to pay tax. Completely ignoring the fact that that isn't what it means.



Give an inch, take a mile :)

[fezzic]

Your one-stop debunking shop for all the tired-out, warmed-over bulldada that CTers spew about the income tax:

Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)

Incidentally, Parky, I think you have the purpose of he 16th Amendment a bit wrong. Congress didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to impose a tax on income; the amendment simply removed the requirement that as a "direct" tax it be apportioned among the states, whatever the Heck that means.


My understanding (quick googling and wiki and my probably overly simplistic explanation) is that direct taxes are essentially taxes on property (also later taxes on income derived from property). The apportionment means that whatever the total amount to be derived would be divided among the states in proportion to their population. So the more populous states would shoulder a greater portion of a given direct tax than a lesser populated state.

I found an explanation for the direct tax clause which said that it was essentially to protect southern slave-owning states from being taxed unfairly due to their having slaves (which were considered property) and lots of land (low population) that was not fully productive -- a situation that was supposedly not exactly mirrored in other non-slave owning states.

Since income from property, presumably farming or renting, was ruled a direct tax, it made it difficult to administer an income tax that tried to cover all income when some was indirect (say from wages), and not subject to apportionment, and some was direct (say from land rental), which was. The 16th amendment simply removed the apportionment requirement.

[Travis]

Well of course the IRS says what they do is legal.:rolleyes:

I mean the FBI has us thinking you can't just kill someone that displeases you. They call it "murder" or something.

[dudalb]

Please ,not this again.
Last year we had a endless thread of frustration with an individual (and some of you know whom I am talking about) who kept saying "Show me where there is a law saying you have to pay Income Tax" and when we showed him..complete with links to the correct federal law..he kept on saying "show me where"..etc, until we gave up in disgust. Which might have been his purpose in the first place.

[parky76]

well, the first and most important part of being a conspiracy theorist is that you WANT it to be true.

with that, convincing yourself that it is false may be impossible.

[NoZed Avenger]

Well of course the IRS says what they do is legal.:rolleyes:

I mean the FBI has us thinking you can't just kill someone that displeases you.

Not true in Texas.

[MG1962]

well, the first and most important part of being a conspiracy theorist is that you WANT it to be true.

with that, convincing yourself that it is false may be impossible.

On another forum I frequent, one such fellow did really believe it. He is out of the Big House now, did 9 months. I wonder if he shared accomodation with Wesley Snipes

[parky76]

the best part is, the folks who follow this crap, always tell people to "open your mind!!"

but when it comes to even looking at counter evidence, they don't wanna hear it.

funny ay?

[sleepy_lioness]

I don't understand this. Surely, if by some massive omission, the US Government had neglected to ensure that it had the legal powers to levy tax, all it would need to do would be to, erm, pass a law giving itself that power? Can't imagine anyone other than the most hardcore Republican voting against.

[ktesibios]

Back on some other thread about TPers I asked why, since the woos are so fond of shouting "show me the law", Congress didn't just pass a "Yes Virginia, there is an income tax, now eat your broccoli before Mom gets mad" Act.

Someone answered that if they did it would be taken as proof that the "there isn't any law" arguments were correct and the TPers would just crank up the volume.

That person, whoever it was, probably hit the nail right on the head.

[Dave Rogers]

You expect conspiracy theorists to do real research? Then they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists.

Given that CT logic is so similar and elementary, I would bet the claim is that the 16th amendment was somehow not "legally" ratified. We all know it was, but you know thats going to be the excuse.

Good call. The line of argument is that (a) Ohio had not been formally admitted to the Union when the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1911, therefore the ratification of the 16th Amendment was procedurally invalid, or (b) William H. Taft, the President who introduced the 16th Amendment, was born in Ohio and hence did not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the United States. Neither line of argument flies particularly well - see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1115/is-u-s-income-tax-invalid-because-ohio-wasnt-legally-a-state-when-the-16th-amendment-was-ratified for a fuller discussion.

Dave

[dudalb]

Not that showing the CTers the Law convinces them....

[parky76]

Good call. The line of argument is that (a) Ohio had not been formally admitted to the Union when the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1911, therefore the ratification of the 16th Amendment was procedurally invalid, or (b) William H. Taft, the President who introduced the 16th Amendment, was born in Ohio and hence did not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the United States. Neither line of argument flies particularly well - see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1115/is-u-s-income-tax-invalid-because-ohio-wasnt-legally-a-state-when-the-16th-amendment-was-ratified for a fuller discussion.

Dave

46 states have ratified the 16th Amendment. I believe this makes it law. Ohio can fall of the Earth..and its still law.

[rwguinn]

Not true in Texas.
Evidence, please?

[NoZed Avenger]

Evidence, please?

Um. Joke?

[Travis]

Um. Joke?

No, we need proof this Texas place exists. Sound quite made up to me.

[NoZed Avenger]

No, we need proof this Texas place exists. Sound quite made up to me.

I can understand that -- Who can truly believe in a place that's Shangri-la, Eden, Shambhala, and Coney Island all wrapped up into one, if you haven't actually been fortunate enough to live there?

[tsig]

I can understand that -- Who can truly believe in a place that's Shangri-la, Eden, Shambhala, and Coney Island all wrapped up into one, if you haven't actually been fortunate enough to live there?

I lived there for a decade one summer.

[Alt+F4]

William H. Taft, the President who introduced the 16th Amendment, was born in Ohio and hence did not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

What do these fruitcakes make of the other Presidents that were born in Ohio?

[Elizabeth I]

Not true in Texas.

Only for those that need killin'.

[CORed]

Lots of people have proved that there is no law requiring you to pay income tax.

Of course, most of them are in federal prisons, for income tax evasion.

[parky76]

Lots of people have proved that there is no law requiring you to pay income tax.

Of course, most of them are in federal prisons, for income tax evasion.

There only proof is simply: "There is no law!!!"

=)

[SimpleIrony]

The same conspiracy theories abound in Canada as well. Well, not exactly the same... no one claims the timing of Ohio becoming a state for why Canada isn't supposed to have an income tax, for example.

People claim that it isn't any law, the law isn't legal, paying taxes are voluntary, there is no way that they can enforce it, etc.

It's especially odd, in Canada, because the ability to collect taxes is explicitly conferred upon the House of Commons in the Constitution Act of 1867 (formerly known as the British North America Act).

Do you suppose somewhere there really is a country where it is illegal to collect income taxes?

Somehow, I'm not buying it.

[Alareth]

No, we need proof this Texas place exists. Sound quite made up to me.


No, it's Wyoming that doesn't exist. It's actually and old indian word that means "No state here."

[parky76]

The same conspiracy theories abound in Canada as well. Well, not exactly the same... no one claims the timing of Ohio becoming a state for why Canada isn't supposed to have an income tax, for example.

People claim that it isn't any law, the law isn't legal, paying taxes are voluntary, there is no way that they can enforce it, etc.

It's especially odd, in Canada, because the ability to collect taxes is explicitly conferred upon the House of Commons in the Constitution Act of 1867 (formerly known as the British North America Act).

Do you suppose somewhere there really is a country where it is illegal to collect income taxes?

Somehow, I'm not buying it.

I am starting to think that the real reason conspiracy theorists don't want to pay Federal income taxes, is that they are cheap.

Wesley Snipes was arrested and sentenced for income tax evasion. He said there is "no law". He has the all the money in the world to pay his taxes. I think he is just cheap.


Freedom isn't free folks. It takes income taxes.

[Alareth]

William H. Taft, the President who introduced the 16th Amendment, was born in Ohio and hence did not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the United States.



Damn birfers, and here I thought Obama was a new phenomenon. Silly me.

[Myron Proudfoot]

Good call. The line of argument is that (a) Ohio had not been formally admitted to the Union when the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1911, therefore the ratification of the 16th Amendment was procedurally invalid, or (b) William H. Taft, the President who introduced the 16th Amendment, was born in Ohio and hence did not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the United States. Neither line of argument flies particularly well - see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1115/is-u-s-income-tax-invalid-because-ohio-wasnt-legally-a-state-when-the-16th-amendment-was-ratified for a fuller discussion.

Dave

Um, except that Congress passes the amendment which then goes straight to the states. The President can not veto a Constitutional Amendment. On the other hand, the ratification has to be certified by the Secretary of State who was a Taft appointee. hummmmm

[SimpleIrony]

Freedom isn't free folks. It takes income taxes.

Well...

It doesn't really require income taxes. It could be funded by estate taxes, property taxes, building taxes, emissions taxes, sales taxes, import taxes, export taxes, birth taxes, education taxes, poll taxes, etc.

We don't necessarily have to tax income per se. Personally, I prefer it to many of the alternatives, but there are other possibilities.

[kageki]

Tom Cryer was acquitted. His site:

http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/




1. THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE HIM LIABLE FOR THE INCOME TAX;

2. THE LAW DOES NOT TAX FEES HE HAS PERSONALLY EARNED;

3. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THEFEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX FEES HE HAS PERSONALLY EARNED;



4. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX THE PRACTICE OF LAW, WHICH IS SOLELY UNDER STATE JURISDICTION;

5. THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES YOUR AND TOM'S RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING AND TO ENGAGE IN ANY LAWFUL OCCUPATION AND THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS TAXING ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT; AND

6. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT TAXATION OF YOUR OR TOM'S WAGES, SALARIES AND FEES PERSONALLY EARNED.


Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges
Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS03/707130321/1062/NEWS03


Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn't actually tax personal earning.

[parky76]

Tom Cryer was acquitted. His site:

http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/



Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges
Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS03/707130321/1062/NEWS03

The 16th Amendment allows the Federal government to impose a tax on ANY income a citizen or legal immigrant may have earned in the United States of America.

This is what the Supreme Court has said, time and time again. The Supreme Court decides what is and is not constitutional. And they have found the 16th Amendment to be just that.

[kageki]

The 16th Amendment allows the Federal government to impose a tax on ANY income a citizen or legal immigrant may have earned in the United States of America.

This is what the Supreme Court has said, time and time again. The Supreme Court decides what is and is not constitutional. And they have found the 16th Amendment to be just that.

The prosecution dropped charges of tax evasion against him.

Consider reading his front page at least. He also addresses the issue of "freedom is not free". This guy is smarter and has more credentials then you on this matter.

[parky76]

The prosecution dropped charges of tax evasion against him.

Consider reading his front page at least. He also addresses the issue of "freedom is not free". This guy is smarter and has more credentials then you on this matter.

sorry, bud. but when it comes to issues relating to the Constitution, I trust NO MAN more then i trust the folks at the Supreme Court of the United States.

and SCOTUS has said time and time..and time again..the Federal income tax on any and all income is lawful.

am I a "sheep" for trusting the Supreme Court? Am I "close minded" to take their point of view. Not really, just a loyal American citizen.

[kageki]

sorry, bud. but when it comes to issues relating to the Constitution, I trust NO MAN more then i trust the folks at the Supreme Court of the United States.

and SCOTUS has said time and time..and time again..the Federal income tax on any and all income is lawful.

am I a "sheep" for trusting the Supreme Court? Am I "close minded" to take their point of view. Not really, just a loyal American citizen.

The folks are still people. The founding fathers fought what exactly? You have blind faith in the government don't you? You believe everything they say do you not? The government blatantly lied about Iraq and you say you are a loyal citizen and went along with it. No you are a loyal sheep.

You prove my point. You don't think. You just go along with it because they say so. SCOTUS is not one single person. They allowed GW to be elected in 2000, but not every member agreed.

This man was still acquitted and charges of tax evasion were dropped.


http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd21.htm

[NoZed Avenger]

This man was still acquitted and charges of tax evasion were dropped.


So essentially, the courts are trustworthy in this case where they allow an aquittal of this guy, but are suspect in each and every other decision ever handed down?

[NoZed Avenger]

Only for those that need killin'.

Ah, I see you've been studying our laws.

[NoZed Avenger]

Tom Cryer was acquitted.


Yeah, that actually is a bit misleading.

The court denied 4 separate motions to dismiss filed by Cryer, specifically finding his arguments about income not being taxable to be "without merit."

IOW, he lost on the law.

Before the jury, he didn't argue that his income wasn't taxable, but that he *believed* that it wasn't at the time that he filed his return -- and therefore did not have a criminal intent to evade taxes. He did not argue that his theories were right in front of the jury. His argument: the jury did not have to believe him on any or all of his claims for the aquittal, they merely had to have reasonable doubt about his intent.

Cf, United States v. Cryer, case no. 5:06-cr-50164-SMH-MLH-ALL, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division.

Try to take that in: He lost on the law. That's the bit about income supposedly not being taxable. The entire basis for his "you don't have to pay taxes" system.

He lost on the law.

He *lost* on the law.

He *lost* on the *law*.

[CurtC]

NoZed, let's dumb it down a little...

Cryer was acquitted of the criminal charge of evading taxes.

But he still has to pay the tax.

Understand that, kageki?

[Alex Libman]

Once again, mere technicalities. All governments attain and retain power through force. So what if they forgot to dot one of their i's or cross one of their t's? The congress will whip up a new law if needed, legitimizing all the taxation they want retroactively.

[Hans]

Do you suppose somewhere there really is a country where it is illegal to collect income taxes?

Somehow, I'm not buying it.

In a number of Islamic countries an income tax would be illegal (or more correctly not legal) or against Shari'ah. The only legal taxes are defined as: Fa’i, Jizya, Kharaj, Ushur, and income from Public properties.

In recently years western style income tax has come in and is one of the complaints that fundamentalists have (as in Pakistan). Saudi, UAE and a few other oil states have no income taxes.

Unfortunately the financial systems of 7th century Arabia were not set up to handle a modern state and how a 'Caliphate' would be funded is one of the "how many angels can dance on a pin" questions for Islamists.

[kageki]

http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd438.htm


Florida Judge Rules Attorney Refusing to File Since 1999 Committed No crime

March 20, 2009. "After a trial of a hearing on a Florida Bar Association complaint alleging that Charles “Chuck” Behm, a Florida attorney, had violated bar rules by committing a criminal act by refusing to file federal income tax returns since 1999 Judge Tyree Boyer ruled that Behm committed no criminal act.

"The Florida Bar was obviously assisted by either DOJ, the IRS or both because its presentation, right down to including the standard name calling and the stale half truths was DOJ SOP. From opening statement to close the DOJ’s fingerprints were all over the case. The only new twist was DOJ’s latest slam against patriots, introducing a new name for what it calls anti-government groups like “tax protesters”, “tax defiers” and, now “Constitutionalists”!! (Behm’s defense attorney, TA’s Tom Cryer, had plenty to say about that in his response.)

"In his cross examination of the Bar's “expert witness”, Cryer was able to force the witness to admit that he could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax and that the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of “frivolous arguments”. The witness also admitted on cross that he did not really have a clear definition of “income”, that he knew of no lawful authority for the IRS’s “zero basis” policy applied only to working Americans’ gross receipts and that the zero basis for “zero basis” is not on the IRS’s list of “frivolous arguments.”

"Chuck Behm then testified that his research into the code and Supreme Court authorities forced him to conclude that he is not liable for the federal income tax and, therefore, not among those required to file returns; that he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment and that he is engaging in no activity that is within the federal government's power to tax. Chuck was very thorough and precise in describing his research and the authorities, making a very clear and convincing account of his command of the subject.

"In her closing, the Bar Counsel argued that people depend upon attorneys to set an example by following and supporting the government and its laws. Cryer rebutted that argument by contending that people do not depend on attorneys to support the government, but to support the Constitution, to protect their rights and to stand up to the government when it abuses either.

"Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over. He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful although he could give no specific basis for that finding. Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling and in that process the Court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes."

http://www.truthattack.org

[parky76]

http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd438.htm

http://www.truthattack.org

And why was this case not appealed by the prosecution?

Anyways, who cares.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled time and time again, the Federal income tax IS legal. So pay up deadbeats and cheapskates!!!

[kageki]

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2007/01/she-fought-for-law-and-law-won.html


Logan County Jury Acquits Harrell

Lincoln, Illinois (5/26/00) - Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell of rural Latham was acquitted by a 12-person jury of the 4-count criminal felony charges of willful failure to file an Illinois State Income Tax form.

The actual trial began on Wednesday, May 24, in the Logan County Circuit Court room, presided over by Senior Judge David "Slick" Coogan ("Slick" is how the judge identifies himself) and closed on Friday after four hours of deliberation when the jury returned with four consecutive "not guilty" verdicts.

"We were in a heated debate," reported one unnamed juror, "but when the court refused, after our specific written request, to furnish us copies of the actual statutes (that imposed the obligation on the defendant) it didn't take long for all of us to see that something was wrong with the state's case.

"That was not all the court refused to let the jury see," added Jerry Barringer, Harrell's attorney. "The court, at the request of the Illinois State's attorney, denied the jury access to evidence that already had been introduced and accepted."

"Astoundingly, even the Bill of Indictment was denied to the jury," chimed in Barringer's legal assistant, Lindsey Springer. "Also denied were jury instructions sanctioned by the Supreme Court and even a VCR recorder to play the video tape that Whitey had made of his meeting with the CID agent."

"I've seen a lot of tyranny in the courts, but never anything so blatant as what I saw here over the last two days," added Bob Minarik, an Indiana friend of Harrell's.

The 4 criminal felony charges had been brought against Harrell in 1997 and just came to trial this past week. Harrell had submitted numerous motions in a case that saw both assigned judges and assigned state's attorneys resign or recuse themselves. All Harrell's motions were denied.

The case started back in early 1997 when Harrell was approached by Illinois Department of Revenue Criminal Investigation Division (CID) agent Robert Craner, who asked him for an interview. The testimony was that Harrell refused until he had witnesses present and a video camera set up at the local library where he later video taped a 45-minute meeting with Craner. On the video, which was shown to the jury at the trial, Harrell specifically pointed out that he could find no section of the Illinois statutes that obligated him to file an Illinois income tax return. He presented Craner with numerous documents that he identified as outlines of statutes and regulations and "administrative code," which he said he searched without finding any obligation that would apply to him. Craner accepted the documents. The tape showed that Craner promised Harrell at least five different times to produce the statutes that made Harrell liable and would get answers to Harrell's questions.

The testimony later showed that Craner didn't do that and instead went back to the Grand Jury to testify that Harrell was a resident of Logan County who failed to file Illinois state income tax forms. Unbeknownst to Harrell at the time of the interview Craner was also acting as a Grand Jury investigator. "He never told me," said Harrell. "He never read me a Miranda warning. He just promised to get me the information, but instead went back to the Grand Jury to get an indictment."

Grand Jury transcripts show that Craner testified that Harrell, at the library meeting, had nothing to offer in his defense of why he didn't file a tax return, but the video tape brought Craner's credibility into serious question.

Harrell testified in his own defense and verified his many efforts to obtain the law that made him liable for the income tax or how his activity was privileged. The prosecution brought out on cross examination that Harrell had filed many law suits in the past and that those suits were dismissed in both the state and federal courts. In an attempt to prove knowledge, the state also elicited that Harrell had previously filed tax returns. Harrell's attorney, Barringer, likened that to believing in Santa Claus when you were a child and then gaining knowledge of the fact that Santa Claus is a fantasy as you got older and wiser. Barringer's questioning of Agent Craner as to his belief in Santa Claus brought an objection from the state's attorney, which was sustained by the judge without any recognition of humor.

Harrell, 62, had worked for the United States Post Office as a rural mail carrier and also received a pension from Caterpillar from where he retired in 1990.

Asked if his case will set a precedent, Harrell said, "Legally, no, but I certainly hope it sets the precedent that more people question the loss of their rights and property whenever government claims it's the law. I feel sure this jury will be thinking twice."

Interestingly, even after the specific request of the jury, neither the state nor the court ever did produce any statute showing Harrell had any obligation. "We don't have anything to say at this time other than Mr. Harrell was very lucky and we will be watching his activities carefully," stated an assistant State's Attorney, who asked not to be identified.

Harrell plans to keep up his efforts to expose what he says is the one of the largest frauds ever committed on the people of Illinois. "Al Capone couldn't hold a candle to these guys," Harrell said when talking about the state's claim of a requirement for wage earners and independent contractors to file a state income tax form.

Harrell's bail bond has been released, and the funds obtained from Harrell to guarantee the bond will be returned. No further court actions are pending against Harrell at this time, but Harrell anticipates further actions by himself against both the state Department of Revenue and the federal Internal Revenue Service.

Marcy Brooks juror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_sZj8dZnJI

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2006/08/jury-that-took-on-irs.html


Tom Cryer - There is no law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDKcwytKkrY

Former IRS Agent Joe Banister and Ron Paul On CNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PvaNWrkFeQ

[Arus808]

kageki, what part of the Supreme court has ruled time and time again, that there is a Income tax law, and that it is not illegal to tax income?

You're grasping at straws here.

[kageki]

And why was this case not appealed by the prosecution?

Anyways, who cares.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled time and time again, the Federal income tax IS legal. So pay up deadbeats and cheapskates!!!

Good question and I don't know.

Show me something. Most likely it's not unanimous anyways.

Does income tax pay for everything or other taxes? What exactly does our income tax pay? Why should my taxes pay for a war I never wanted? Why is our taxes paying for bailouts that are going to bonuses for executives? Spending is way beyond what we can pay and then they keep wanting more and more...

[dudalb]

Good question and I don't know.

Show me something. Most likely it's not unanimous anyways.

Jesus, don't you understand that in terms of legality of ruling, there is no difference between a Unanimous and a Majority Court ruling?
There are reasons why a Unanimous ruling might have greater force in the political world, but in terms of practical law there is no difference.

[dudalb]

Kageki, I suggest you refuse to pay income tax and see what happens.
Is there any idiocy you will not fall for if it is "anti Establishment"?

[dudalb]

Once again, mere technicalities. All governments attain and retain power through force. So what if they forgot to dot one of their i's or cross one of their t's? The congress will whip up a new law if needed, legitimizing all the taxation they want retroactively.

And in a society without a Government, whoever has the most guns will rule.
I know that wrecks you little anarchist fantasy, but reality sucks.

[parky76]

G Why should my taxes pay for a war I never wanted?

If there was a referendum on what federal income taxes could and could not pay for, our nation would simply fail to function.

we elect representatives to make decisions for our nation. if you don't like the decisions they are making, get yourself, your friends, your family, your co-workers, etc. to vote them out of office.

[parky76]

Kageki, I suggest you refuse to pay income tax and see what happens.
Is there any idiocy you will not fall for if it is "anti Establishment"?

I agree. Kageki, I suggest you stop paying your Federal income taxes right now. Stand up for what you believe in. Don't be a slave to the system. Stand up to the powers that be. Defy the NWO!!!

[kageki]

kageki, what part of the Supreme court has ruled time and time again, that there is a Income tax law, and that it is not illegal to tax income?

You're grasping at straws here.

Define income.

You all talk a lot. Now show something for it.

[SimpleIrony]

In a number of Islamic countries an income tax would be illegal (or more correctly not legal) or against Shari'ah. The only legal taxes are defined as: Fa’i, Jizya, Kharaj, Ushur, and income from Public properties.

In recently years western style income tax has come in and is one of the complaints that fundamentalists have (as in Pakistan). Saudi, UAE and a few other oil states have no income taxes.

Unfortunately the financial systems of 7th century Arabia were not set up to handle a modern state and how a 'Caliphate' would be funded is one of the "how many angels can dance on a pin" questions for Islamists.

That's really interesting. I know next to nothing about Islam. I really should learn sometime. It does seem like it would make a modern state hard to achieve in that case.

[parky76]

Define income.

You all talk a lot. Now show something for it.

The SCOTUS has said that the income that the Federal govt. may tax includes ANY and ALL income, wages, pay, etc. etc. earned by an individual. That means everything!!!

This is from the United States Tax Code. Its is the LAW of the land:

26 U.S.C. § 61
[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; . . .

Furthermore:

---By looking to common meaning, the Supreme Court has had no trouble interpreting the term "income" in the tax code. In early cases, the Court interpreted the term to mean "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." E.g., Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920). More recently, the Court has suggested that the term means, even more broadly, all "accessions to wealth." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955). That is the accepted definition in tax law today. So the income tax law is not ineffective just because it does not specifically define the term "income." ----

Got it now??

[kageki]

The SCOTUS has said that the income that the Federal govt. may tax includes ANY and ALL income, wages, pay, etc. etc. earned by an individual. That means everything!!!

Got it now?

You're still just talking.

http://www.truthattack.org/jml/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23:what-is-income&catid=2:general

[parky76]

You're still just talking.

http://www.truthattack.org/jml/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23:what-is-income&catid=2:general

No. I have posted the actual laws from the US tax codes and the name of Supreme Court cases and the actual decisions that said all and any income you might earn is taxable.

You are now in the realm of lying.

[parky76]

Kageki- the law is clear. The Supreme Court has decided again and again. If you do not want to pay taxes, don't do it. But don't lie to other people and say "there is no law". Cause there is. Its been shown to you.

[kageki]

That's really interesting. I know next to nothing about Islam. I really should learn sometime. It does seem like it would make a modern state hard to achieve in that case.

It's actually very interesting. They also forbid usury or interest.

A modern state is also defined by fiat currency as opposed to fixed (gold). So much for modern state when it's all crashing down hard right now.

[kageki]

No. I have posted the actual laws from the US tax codes and the name of Supreme Court cases and the actual decisions that said all and any income you might earn is taxable.

You are now in the realm of lying.

You said yourself it is not clearly defined.

I'm quoting.

[parky76]

You said yourself it is not clearly defined.

I'm quoting.

There is a law that says you must pay taxes. Don't do it if you don't like it. But there is a law. Saying there isn't...is a boldface lie.

[parky76]

Define income.



In early cases, the Court interpreted the term to mean "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." E.g., Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920). More recently, the Court has suggested that the term means, even more broadly, all "accessions to wealth." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955).

This means that if it increased your piggybank...then it is taxable. Anything that increases the amount of money you possess...is income..

Cars are not income. TVs are not income. Horses are not income. But money is income.

Its very clear to all those who are honest and not cheapskates and liars.

[kageki]

There is a law that says you must pay taxes. Don't do it if you don't like it. But there is a law. Saying there isn't...is a boldface lie.

http://www.truthattack.org/jml/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22:there-is-no-law&catid=2:general


There Is No Law
Every tax law must clearly and plainly identify three things:

1) The subject of the tax;

2) The amount of the tax; and

3)The persons or entities liable for the tax.

Even a cursory review of other tax laws, including all other federal tax laws (see list), makes it obvious that these three elements of any tax law must be present before any of us can determine that we owe a tax on what and for how much.

The income tax law, however, is the only instance where there is no clear liability provision applicable to those the IRS claims are liable for the tax. Although partners are called liable for taxes on partnerships, that “liability” is only in their “individual capacity”, and there is no provision making them liable in their “individual capacity.” The only clear liability provision is § 1461, which specifically assigns liability for the tax to those required to withhold taxes on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations! Are you required to withhold taxes on a nonresident alien? A foreign corporation?

While 26 U.S.C. § 3403, which is not part of the income tax law, does require employers to withhold income tax owed by their employees, there is no law that makes the employee liable for the tax in the first place.

Thus, THERE IS NO LAW making the typical working American liable for any income tax.

But you don’t have to take our word for it. You can check this for yourself! Search the Internal Revenue Code for “liable”, then search for “must pay”, “obligated to pay”, then search for “responsible for payment” or any other configuration of words that would designate who is liable for the income tax. You will find plenty of liability provisions for other taxes, but not for the income tax. (See compilation of liability provisions)

So, do you owe an income tax? Are you among those required by law to pay an income tax?

All tax laws must be interpreted literally, what lawyers call “strict construction”. You have a right to insist that the government obey the law and in the case of tax laws, the letter of the law. ACCORDING TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE unless you are withholding taxes on a nonresident alien or a foreign corporation, YOU ARE NOT LIABLE FOR AN INCOME TAX!

YOU DO NOT OWE AN INCOME TAX AND THE IRS HAS NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY FOR DEMANDING THAT YOU PAY AN INCOME TAX!!!

[ktesibios]

In early cases, the Court interpreted the term to mean "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." E.g., Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920). More recently, the Court has suggested that the term means, even more broadly, all "accessions to wealth." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955).

This means that if it increased your piggybank...then it is taxable. Anything that increases the amount of money you possess...is income..

Cars are not income. TVs are not income. Horses are not income. But money is income.

Its very clear to all those who are honest and not cheapskates and liars.

REally? If I went on a game show and won, and the prize was a thoroughbred horse, could I not be taxed on the fair market value of the horse- or would it be like the time I inherited some stock from my grandmother, where the only taxes that had to be paid were capital gains tax, based on the difference between its value at the time I acquired it and what it fetched when I finally sold it?

Could I avoid tax liability on the horse simply by keeping it until it died instead of selling it and using the money to buy something I actually wanted?

[parky76]

Kageki- we have shown you the law. The US Tax Code is law. The 16th Amendment is law. The decisions of the SCOTUS....are the final say of these laws.

Anyone who says you don't have to pay federal income taxes is a cheapskate and a liar.

[parky76]

REally? If I went on a game show and won, and the prize was a thoroughbred horse, could I not be taxed on the fair market value of the horse- o

I have seen no evidence that if you get paid in horse meat, and not dollars, for your labor, then you can have your horse meat taxed.

Horse meat is not taxable. Only money is.

..I think.

So, yes, if you get paid in horse meat, or Orios, or chicken McNuggets, then you won't have to pay income taxes.

If it can't be put in a bank..then it can't be taxed..from what I read.

[kageki]

Kageki- we have shown you the law. The US Tax Code is law. The 16th Amendment is law. The decisions of the SCOTUS....are the final say of these laws.

Anyone who says you don't have to pay federal income taxes is a cheapskate and a liar.

Big lie. Please try to actually respond to Tom Cryer instead of repeating the same thing. You've said it enough and you conclude that they didn't clearly define the law!

It's not about cheap. There's plenty of other taxes. Even with the income tax, they keep increasing taxes. If they don't pay income tax then they will spend it. What about state vs federal? This is about the law and now the only thing you can come up with is about being cheap and lying.

[parky76]

Kageki- I honestly believe that if you REALLY didn't think that the Federal income tax was legal, you would simply not pay your income taxes and would have no second thought about it.

My assumption? You DO pay your taxes...you KNOW you have to....you KNOW its legal..and you're just playing games.

Am I warm?

[kageki]

Kageki- I honestly believe that if you REALLY didn't think that the Federal income tax was legal, you would simply not pay your income taxes and would have no second thought about it.

My assumption? You DO pay your taxes...you KNOW you have to....you KNOW its legal..and you're just playing games.

Am I warm?

What does this have to do with whether there is a law or not?

Now you're talking about beliefs. Not laws. I don't know because I have never done the research and neither have you. I mean real research.

[parky76]

What does this have to do with whether there is a law or not?

Now you're talking about beliefs. Not laws. I don't know because I have never done the research and neither have you. I mean real research.

I have seen the laws that make the US income tax law. I have shown them to you. I have also seen the SCOTUS decisions that support the legality of the Federal income tax code and the 16th Amendment. I have also shown these to you.

I am now 100% convinced that I, as a patriotic American citizen, am required to pay Federal income taxes. I don't like it, I don't enjoy it, but it is the law of my country and I will do it.

=)

[dudalb]

Kageki, if you think the income tax is unfair, fine. Work to have it repealed.
But don;'t run this it's illegal BS by us.
Ever hear the name Wesley Snipes,BTW?

[kageki]

Kageki, if you think the income tax is unfair, fine. Work to have it repealed.
But don;'t run this it's illegal BS by us.
Ever hear the name Wesley Snipes,BTW?

Ever hear of Tom Cryer?

[kageki]

I have seen the laws that make the US income tax law. I have shown them to you. I have also seen the SCOTUS decisions that support the legality of the Federal income tax code and the 16th Amendment. I have also shown these to you.

I am now 100% convinced that I, as a patriotic American citizen, am required to pay Federal income taxes. I don't like it, I don't enjoy it, but it is the law of my country and I will do it.

=)

Respond to Tom Cryer.

None of those laws are clear period.

[parky76]

Respond to Tom Cryer.

None of those laws are clear period.

No. They are very clear. But if you don't want to pay income taxes, then one will say and believe anything.

[kageki]

No. They are very clear. But if you don't want to pay income taxes, then one will say and believe anything.

Respond to Tom Cryer.

[parky76]

Respond to Tom Cryer.

Like you, all he is doing is denying the facts in his face. Simply saying "there is no law" and "its illegal" and "income is not defined"...does not make it so.

[KingMerv00]

Even if there weren't a statute, there sure as hell is enough common law to back it up.

I kid you not...at this very moment, I am on my way to my federal income tax law class. Perhaps the CTists would like to joint me?

[parky76]

Even if there weren't a statute, there sure as hell is enough common law to back it up.

But...but..there is no law!!!!!!!!!

:D

.....well sure there is.

No there isn't!!!!!!!

...its right here...read it.

But..but..there is no law!!!!!

[Alareth]

Ever hear of Tom Cryer?


Yes, he was discussed earlier in the thread. He was the guy that didn't end up in jail, but still had to pay his taxes.

[Horatius]

Respond to Tom Cryer.



Okay, fine. The argument you posted falls on this one point:


Even a cursory review of other tax laws, including all other federal tax laws (see list), makes it obvious that these three elements of any tax law must be present before any of us can determine that we owe a tax on what and for how much.


His "cursory review", which he posits is an established point of law, is in fact no such thing. Laws are commonly interpreted in light of common understandings of the terms used, and in particular as those terms have been interpreted by the Courts. There is no requirement that every term used in the law be defined in the law. While that may be considered a "Best Practice", in order to avoid just this sort of non-sense, it is in no way a fundamental requirement.


If you really believe that his argument has merit, why are you still paying income tax? Do you lack the courage of your convictions, or just lack the convictions themselves?

[parky76]

If you really believe that his argument has merit, why are you still paying income tax? Do you lack the courage of your convictions, or just lack the convictions themselves?

Nope. he knows the tax is legal. thats why he pays it.

[dudalb]

Why should I pay attention to another "Tax Patriot" who failed miserably to get out of paying his taxes?

[dudalb]

Respond to Tom Cryer.

None of those laws are clear period.

Several "Tax Patriots" doing time in Club Fed might disagree with you.
I love the way that rather then make the case that the Income Tax is a bad form of taxation and working to get it repealed, the Anti Income Tax people invariably resort to kooky attempts to prove that somehow the Income Tax is "illegal" or that salaries are not "income".

[3bodyproblem]

Could I avoid tax liability on the horse simply by keeping it until it died instead of selling it and using the money to buy something I actually wanted?

That's actually an interesting question. I'm not sure in the states, but here in Canada the horse would be tax free. His winnings would also be tax free. However, once he retired and was put to stud, his income would be taxable. But, his income from his prodginy (you get something like 5% of the winnings from horses sired by this horse) would be tax free.

I think I've got that right.

[kageki]

Okay, fine. The argument you posted falls on this one point:





His "cursory review", which he posits is an established point of law, is in fact no such thing. Laws are commonly interpreted in light of common understandings of the terms used, and in particular as those terms have been interpreted by the Courts. There is no requirement that every term used in the law be defined in the law. While that may be considered a "Best Practice", in order to avoid just this sort of non-sense, it is in no way a fundamental requirement.


If you really believe that his argument has merit, why are you still paying income tax? Do you lack the courage of your convictions, or just lack the convictions themselves?

What are your credentials anyways? I realize this isn't going to get anywhere because I am in no way an expert. I doubt any of you are anyways.

Tom Cryer was recently just acquitted also.

Irrelevant. In fact after this year I will follow through. After this year because I always choose to have my taxes witheld. So much for the useless, irrelevant point eh?

[parky76]

What are your credentials anyways? I realize this isn't going to get anywhere because I am in no way an expert. I doubt any of you are anyways.

It doesn't take an expert, or a lawyer, or an accountant, or a CPA, to know that the Federal income tax is law.

All it takes is the ability to read, the United States Constitution, the Internal Revenue Code, a few Supreme Court decisions, and the strength and courage to accept something as being fact even though it may be highly financially inconvenient to see it as so.

[parky76]

Tom Cryer was recently just acquitted also.



O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Racists murderers left and right were acquitted in the American South during the 1950s and 1960s.

[dudalb]

But Cryer still had to pay the taxes he claimed he did not have to pay, if I understand.

[fullflavormenthol]

Interesting note about the Cryer case. He never argued to the jury regarding the legality of the income tax, but merely argued that he did not believe he owed the taxes; removing criminal intent. Citing this case as a basis to prove that there is no law requiring one to pay income tax is ludicrious, because the case in question did not deal with the legality of federal income tax, but with criminal intent on the part of Cryer. The case was decided on the matter of criminal intent.

[Horatius]

Nope. he knows the tax is legal. thats why he pays it.


Well, that's the "just lack the convictions themselves" part I included. That is, he's knows he's full of it.


I love the way that rather then make the case that the Income Tax is a bad form of taxation and working to get it repealed, the Anti Income Tax people invariably resort to kooky attempts to prove that somehow the Income Tax is "illegal" or that salaries are not "income".


That's just it. I'd be sympathetic to an argument that an income tax is a bad idea, and that Government revenue should come from other forms of taxation, but the insistence that it's not even legal just annoys the crap out of me.


What are your credentials anyways? I realize this isn't going to get anywhere because I am in no way an expert. I doubt any of you are anyways.



Well, I'm a Patent Examiner in the Canadian Patent Office, who just finished a three year position on our Reissue Board. Both positions require some understanding of law, and how statute law is interpreted by the Courts. In fact, a case I argued in front of the Patent Appeal Board was recently decided entirely in favour of the position I presented.

I'd also suggest you look up the legislative and judicial history of the term "obvious" in regards to patents, to see how terms are defined by the courts when there is no explicit definition in the law. Perhaps a less emotionally-charged issue will allow you to see how you may be wrong here.


Irrelevant. In fact after this year I will follow through. After this year because I always choose to have my taxes witheld. So much for the useless, irrelevant point eh?



Well, I respect that you may have the courage of your convictions. Please let us know how your prosecution goes, and how much taxes and penalties you end up paying.

[Horatius]

Interesting note about the Cryer case. He never argued to the jury regarding the legality of the income tax, but merely argued that he did not believe he owed the taxes; removing criminal intent. Citing this case as a basis to prove that there is no law requiring one to pay income tax is ludicrious, because the case in question did not deal with the legality of federal income tax, but with criminal intent on the part of Cryer. The case was decided on the matter of criminal intent.



Do you (or anyone, Paging LashL!) have a link to the actual decision in this case? I tried to find one, but came up empty.

Seeing what the judge actually said, as opposed to the CT-biased interpretations posted so far, would be instructive.

[parky76]

Interesting note about the Cryer case. He never argued to the jury regarding the legality of the income tax, but merely argued that he did not believe he owed the taxes; removing criminal intent. Citing this case as a basis to prove that there is no law requiring one to pay income tax is ludicrious, because the case in question did not deal with the legality of federal income tax, but with criminal intent on the part of Cryer. The case was decided on the matter of criminal intent.

Sssshhhhh!!!!!! Don't tell everyone that!!

You'll blow their whole cover!!

:D

But yes, it would be wonderful if the tax protesters actually worked to have the Federal income tax repealed. If they were honest, if they were genuine, if they were patriotic...that would be the route they would take.

But...alas..they are not.

[kageki]

Interesting note about the Cryer case. He never argued to the jury regarding the legality of the income tax, but merely argued that he did not believe he owed the taxes; removing criminal intent. Citing this case as a basis to prove that there is no law requiring one to pay income tax is ludicrious, because the case in question did not deal with the legality of federal income tax, but with criminal intent on the part of Cryer. The case was decided on the matter of criminal intent.

I'm not referring to the earlier one. I am talking about the one that just happened couple days ago.

[parky76]

-----The prosecution dropped its allegations of tax evasion (on which the law provides a maximum prison term of five years)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer#cite_note-6) against Cryer on July 9, 2007. Cryer was then tried on two counts of willful failure to file tax returns, for which the maximum jail sentence is one year in prison.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer#cite_note-7)
Cryer was acquitted on July 11, 2007.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer#cite_note-8) Cryer did not make any of his arguments about the legality of the income tax to the jury itself. Instead he asserted that he really did not believe that he owed the taxes, so there was no criminal intent. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader:
Cryer convinced jurors that he genuinely believed he was not liable for the $73,000 in taxes the government says he owes for tax years 2000 and 2001. Absent proof of criminal intent, the jury acquitted him.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer#cite_note-UnionLeader-9)

Tom was not acquited because the jury agreed that the income tax is illegal. he was acquited because they believed that HE truly thinks it is illegal.

[fullflavormenthol]

I'm not referring to the earlier one. I am talking about the one that just happened couple days ago.
Provide a link to it please, because none of your earlier links provide any information on one that took place between March 19th and Today (March 23rd).

[parky76]

Provide a link to it please, because none of your earlier links provide any information on one that took place between March 19th and Today (March 23rd).

i just did a search. i found nothing. i think its made up.

[Horatius]

The court rejected Cryer's first motion, in which Cryer had contended that the indictment had failed to allege "affirmative acts."[6] The court rejected Cryer's second motion, in which Cryer had argued that the Secretary of the Treasury had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act by not publishing certain information in the Federal Register.[6] The court rejected Cryer's third motion, in which Cryer had asked for dismissal on the ground that he had not, with respect to a trust mentioned in the indictment, created that trust for the purpose of evading taxes.[6] The court rejected Cryer's fourth motion to dismiss, in which Cryer contended that his income, which was derived through the practice of law in Louisiana, was not "taxable income" as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, ruling the contention to be "without merit."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer#Cryer_files_motions_to_dismiss_tax_evasi on_charges


So, the court rejected all his motions. He won because he convinced the jury that he really was that stupid. One of the weaknesses of the jury system, I guess.

[parky76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer#Cryer_files_motions_to_dismiss_tax_evasi on_charges


So, the court rejected all his motions. He won because he convinced the jury that he really was that stupid. One of the weaknesses of the jury system, I guess.

Yes. Basically, the jury did finally decide that "yes, this guy really is as stupid as he claims".

[fezzic]

My understanding in tax evasion prosecutions, the prosecutors HAVE to show that the defendant intended to evade taxes with knowledge that it was wrong and against the law. Merely proving that it happened is not enough.

So it is the criminal intent part that people tend to get acquitted on, but the tax is still owed.

I don't think claiming that one personally believes the income tax shouldn't be paid will work in court more than once though. Being mistaken is one thing. Reasonable doubt, you know. Doing it again, after being prosecuted once, would tend to have jurors going, "didn't you learn the first time"?

[Horatius]

"Show me the law!"

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm


"But I sent the IRS a leter, asking them to show me the law!"

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IRSrefuses.htm


"But they don't define "Income"!"

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/income.htm

Just to show I'm really that good:

Some tax protestors claim that the whole income tax law is defeated because the tax statute contains no definition of the term "income." The statute defines "gross income" (section 61) and "taxable income" (section 63) but not the ultimate term "income" itself.

Well, it's true that the income tax statutes don't define the term "income." And obviously that is a very important term in the statute. But there are two reasons why the statute is fully effective despite this omission.

1. There's no requirement that every term in a statute be defined. Lots of statutory terms are undefined. In fact, Congress could almost never define every term in a statute, because terms have to be defined by other terms, so in the end there's almost always some undefined term.

The general principle is that "unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979). So there is a well-accepted method of dealing with undefined terms in a statute: just give the terms their ordinary, common meaning.



Any other silly arguments? Please see:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

to see if they've been dealt with.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I have seen no evidence that if you get paid in horse meat, and not dollars, for your labor, then you can have your horse meat taxed.

Horse meat is not taxable. Only money is.

..I think.

So, yes, if you get paid in horse meat, or Orios, or chicken McNuggets, then you won't have to pay income taxes.

If it can't be put in a bank..then it can't be taxed..from what I read.Your horse meat is taxable. Except for limited exceptions, goods (and services) received are taxable at their fair market value.

26 U.S.C. 3401(a)

For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

[parky76]

OK. So we finally figured it out. If you believe that the Federal income tax is illegal, then either you cannot read, are a liar, or are an idiot.

[tsig]

Respond to Tom Cryer.

You're the one posting here not Tom Cryer.

Why do you believe in him so much?

[kageki]

OK. So we finally figured it out. If you believe that the Federal income tax is illegal, then either you cannot read, are a liar, or are an idiot.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4544585&postcount=50

This juror keeps saying the same thing about the law.

Apparently in the court, they don't bring up this usual argument about the 16th amendment and such.

[parky76]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4544585&postcount=50

This juror keeps saying the same thing about the law.

Apparently in the court, they don't bring up this usual argument about the 16th amendment and such.

That's nice. The Federal income tax is legal.

Do you think that the mere concept of a Federal income tax is a bad thing?

[Horatius]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4544585&postcount=50

This juror keeps saying the same thing about the law.

Apparently in the court, they don't bring up this usual argument about the 16th amendment and such.



The fact that a juror might be just as stupid as a defendant is irrelevant to the question of whether or not income tax is legal.



You do realize that jurors aren't trained legal professionals, right?

[rwguinn]

"Show me the law!"

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm


"But I sent the IRS a leter, asking them to show me the law!"

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IRSrefuses.htm


"But they don't define "Income"!"

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/income.htm

Just to show I'm really that good:





Any other silly arguments? Please see:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

to see if they've been dealt with.
The SCOTUS Has ruled--don't have the link, so this is paraphrased-- that "income, in the ordinary sense of the word" can be taxed via Amendment XVI.
In the ordinary6 sense of the word. pRETTY OBVIOUS, AT LEAST TO 99.99987318% of the people who understand English...

[DevilsAdvocate]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4544585&postcount=50

This juror keeps saying the same thing about the law.

Apparently in the court, they don't bring up this usual argument about the 16th amendment and such.I assume you are aware Harrell has since been convicted of failure to file tax returns:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/gaylon-harrell

However, in 2006, he was charged again with three counts of criminal failure to file Illinois income tax returns for 1996, 1997, and 1998, and was convicted on all three counts on 12/17/2008. People of the State of Illinois v. Gaylon L. Harrell, No. 2006CM215 (Cir. Ct. of Logan Co. Ill.). As noted above, Harrell filed a motion to dismiss the Illinois prosecution on the grounds that it was barred by the federal Paperwork Reduction Act, but the motion was denied. On February 5, 2009, Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2,500 and court costs, and payment of his taxes for 1996, 1997, and 1998, plus penalties and interest.

[DevilsAdvocate]

"Show me the law!"

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

I was going to write up an explanation of how the law says you must pay income tax, but it would have looked just like this link.

[Horatius]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4544585&postcount=50

This juror keeps saying the same thing about the law.

Apparently in the court, they don't bring up this usual argument about the 16th amendment and such.



So, still no substantive response to my points?

[Horatius]

I was going to write up an explanation of how the law says you must pay income tax, but it would have looked just like this link.



Which is exactly the point. These issues have been addressed before, but the tax protester idiots just refuse to accept it.



Tax protesters: Oppose taxes all you want, but at least do it on the grounds that you don't like taxes, not this ********.

[HereticHulk]

Does income tax pay for everything or other taxes? What exactly does our income tax pay? Why should my taxes pay for a war I never wanted? Why is our taxes paying for bailouts that are going to bonuses for executives? Spending is way beyond what we can pay and then they keep wanting more and more...

Damn straight! :thumbsup:

[Horatius]

Damn straight! :thumbsup:


Like I just said!

Tax protesters: Oppose taxes all you want, but at least do it on the grounds that you don't like taxes, not this ********.

[parky76]

My uncle, who is retired from the IRS, emailed me this:

Over 2500 tax protestors were sent to jail..and over 4200 investigated...in one year (see link).

These people simply put have 2 motives:
1. to make money off of gullible suckers
2. a hatred of the USA, especially when paying taxes..they simply don't want to pay money
to the government.

The courts for decades have decided against their arguments.

However, we are a rich country (can print trillions to bail out failing banks, Wall Street firms,
and home owners who should never have played with the equity of their homes and the mortgage
lenders who seduced them into borrowing. (BTW, they did spend the money on new cars, vacations,
furniture, new roofs, a motor home, etc.).

So, some people think, why pay the government anyway..since they use the funds for
nefarious purposes..wars, etc?

However, to repeat...when you play with fire, you can get burned and eventually, most do.

[kageki]

So, still no substantive response to my points?

The point about jurors not knowing? That's not much of a point imo.

You are not an attorney or an expert on tax laws.

[parky76]

The point about jurors not knowing? That's not much of a point imo.

You are not an attorney or an expert on tax laws.

No, but he can READ. That's all it takes to understand the truth.

[kageki]

No, but he can READ. That's all it takes to understand the truth.

Yes that's why people become CTs. Another pointless argument.

You are still not an attorney or an expert on tax laws.

[Horatius]

The point about jurors not knowing? That's not much of a point imo.

You are not an attorney or an expert on tax laws.



So, that's a "No" then.


Typical.

[kageki]

So, that's a "No" then.


Typical.

You don't either. Yet that's how cases are decided.

Again pointless.

[rdaneel]

Been following this thread and reading the irs.gov site which has a pretty comprehensive debunking of tax myths (http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html). So far, nothing new here they haven't got covered. Seems they have no trouble finding laws that support their position.

About jury acquittals of tax evaders.

Taxpayers who assert the position that wages are not taxable income, or other frivolous positions, may later claim that they were ignorant of or did not purposely disregard the requirements of the tax laws, such as the requirements to report wages and to withhold and pay taxes. Also, a handful of taxpayers who are criminally charged with violations of the internal revenue laws have avoided conviction.
Taxpayers should not mistake these cases for an indication that frivolous positions that lead to criminal acquittals are legitimate or that the outcome of other cases will protect a taxpayer from sanctions resulting from noncompliance. Furthermore, while a few defendants have prevailed, the vast majority are convicted. Also, even though a taxpayer may be acquitted of criminal charges of noncompliance with Federal tax laws, the Service is still free to pursue any underlying tax liability and is not barred from determining civil penalties. See Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938); Price v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-204.
They also answer why you have to pay taxes for things you oppose.

Some argue that taxpayers may refuse to pay federal income taxes based on their religious or moral beliefs, or objection to the use of taxes to fund certain government programs. These persons mistakenly invoke the First Amendment in support of this frivolous position.
The Law: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment, however, does not provide a right to refuse to pay income taxes on religious or moral grounds, or because taxes are used to fund government programs opposed by the taxpayer. Nor does the First Amendment protect commercial speech or speech that aids or incites taxpayers to unlawfully refuse to pay federal income taxes, including speech that promotes abusive tax avoidance schemes.

[parky76]

Yes that's why people become CTs. Another pointless argument.

You are still not an attorney or an expert on tax laws.

No. People become CTists because they are paranoid, lonely, unsuccessful, and bored. And sometimes insane.

Are you actually suggesting only an attorney can accurately ascertain the legality of the Federal income tax?

My uncle retired from the IRS. I trust his view on this.

[kageki]

No. People become CTists because they are paranoid, lonely, unsuccessful, and bored. And sometimes insane.

Are you actually suggesting only an attorney can accurately ascertain the legality of the Federal income tax?

My uncle retired from the IRS. I trust his view on this.

Oh you sure got me parky.

I would think that an attorney would be more qualified. Yes.

I can show you a couple retired IRS agents who have become tax protesters. Your uncle hasn't said a word about legality. Just that people get jailed. What do you know I can argue that people get jailed out of ignorance of the jurors.

Just let this thread die. It's not going to get anywhere and you have been derailing yourself for a long time.

[kageki]

Been following this thread and reading the irs.gov site which has a pretty comprehensive debunking of tax myths (http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html). So far, nothing new here they haven't got covered. Seems they have no trouble finding laws that support their position.

About jury acquittals of tax evaders.

They also answer why you have to pay taxes for things you oppose.

Let's ask the mafia what they think of themselves...

Apparently there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Watch that clip of the former IRS agent and Ron Paul. He addresses that term "abusive tax avoidance".

[Horatius]

You don't either.



I "don't either" what? You do realize I've made more (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4545101#post4545101) points (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4545220#post4545220) in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4545331#post4545331) than the issue of idiot jurors, right? Those would be the substantive points you've (yet again) ignored.


Nice to see yet another example of a CTist choosing to willfully ignore arguments that demolish their beloved preconceptions.

[parky76]

Let's ask the mafia what they think of themselves...

.

Ahh...so now its not that the income tax is illegal. now its that the money goes to crooks. is that your REAL motivation?

do you REALLY not want to pay your taxes because you don't like who it goes to?

the truth always comes out eventually.

:D

[kageki]

Ahh...so now its not that the income tax is illegal. now its that the money goes to crooks. is that your REAL motivation?

do you REALLY not want to pay your taxes because you don't like who it goes to?

the truth always comes out eventually.

:D

My point is rather the other way around. If the income tax is really illegal then they wouldn't want to admit to it.

You are really grasping at straws here. Stop derailing your own thread. It's pitiful.

[fullflavormenthol]

Ahh...so now its not that the income tax is illegal. now its that the money goes to crooks. is that your REAL motivation?

do you REALLY not want to pay your taxes because you don't like who it goes to?

the truth always comes out eventually.

:D
Behind any tax protestor argument is ant-government hatred.

[kageki]

I "don't either" what? You do realize I've made more (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4545101#post4545101) points (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4545220#post4545220) in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4545331#post4545331) than the issue of idiot jurors, right? Those would be the substantive points you've (yet again) ignored.


Nice to see yet another example of a CTist choosing to willfully ignore arguments that demolish their beloved preconceptions.

They aren't really points in my view, but fine since you're one of those types of people.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4545101#post4545101

I can't make a judgement regarding your critique. I just know is that you are not an attorney or an expert on tax laws and only addressed one small portion.

I've offered my conviction.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4545220#post4545220

Pretty much the same as the first one.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4545331#post4545331

This actually doesn't really address the points made by Tom Cryer and just repeats the same thing all of you have been saying.


This is why I said just drop it. It's not going to get anywhere further.

[kageki]

Beyond any tax protestor argument is ant-government hatred.

If the government is doing something wrong then they need to be held accountable.

[fullflavormenthol]

If the government is doing something wrong then they need to be held accountable.
Wrong by what standard and whose judgement? Wrong can be rather subjective. I think it is wrong to pour too much financial aid into colleges. I think it is wrong to give out food stamps. I think it is wrong to fund after school programs. (These are merely examples, and necessarily my opinions) Wrong is a point of view, and if everyone was able to refuse to pay taxes based on what they personally didn't like than no one would ever pay taxes.

[NoZed Avenger]

And why was this case not appealed by the prosecution?


Generally, the prosecution doesn't get to appeal much of anything.

[NoZed Avenger]

Respond to Tom Cryer.

He was responded to in court. His arguments were found "without merit." That is a polite way to say "laughable."

But I hope you take his advice and refuse to pay taxes.

Because that's the malicious, vindictive kind of guy I am. I am going to try to be a better person, but maybe tomorrow.

[Disbelief]

In early cases, the Court interpreted the term to mean "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." E.g., Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920). More recently, the Court has suggested that the term means, even more broadly, all "accessions to wealth." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955).

This means that if it increased your piggybank...then it is taxable. Anything that increases the amount of money you possess...is income..

Cars are not income. TVs are not income. Horses are not income. But money is income.

Its very clear to all those who are honest and not cheapskates and liars.

Actually, these can be taxable as imputed income. If the company you work for gives you a company vehicle to use, you have to declare that on your return as imputed income to determine your tax bracket. There is a gray area in this however, so it is far less cut-and-dried than direct income.

[Dave Rogers]

Apparently there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

There is a commonly-used set of definitions which you're probably referring to, in which tax avoidance (or tax mitigation) is the use of legally permitted strategies to minimise tax liability, and tax evasion is the use of legally prohibited strategies. Avoidance would include such strategies as creating a limited company, transferring one's assets to that company and receiving a salary from it. Evasion would include such strategies as entering false information on a tax return. This is fairly basic stuff.

Dave

[Alareth]

This actually doesn't really address the points made by Tom Cryer and just repeats the same thing all of you have been saying.


You are deliberately ignoring the fact that despite not going to jail, Cryer still has to, and is, paying the taxes.

His points are MEANINGLESS.

[Horatius]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4545101#post4545101

I can't make a judgement regarding your critique. I just know is that you are not an attorney or an expert on tax laws and only addressed one small portion.



So, you admit you can't address the point, and so discard it entirely just because I'm the one who made it. A classic ad hominem, in other words. Nice to see you admit it.


This is why I said just drop it. It's not going to get anywhere further.


Probably the only useful thing you've said in this thread.


But, by all means, have the courage of your convictions, and stop paying your taxes. Apparently, the only way you'll actually understand that taxes are actually legal, and that you actually have to pay them, is to have an actual judge tell you to your actual face in an actual trial that you actually have to pay your taxes with actual money, that I'm pretty sure you actually won't have.

[tsig]

If the government is doing something wrong then they need to be held accountable.

Just who will bell that cat?

Will you be holding the government accountable? How will you go about it? Lawsuits are out because the courts are part of the government so I guess armed rebellion is all that is left. Word of advice. Don't fire the first shot it makes 'em mad.

[kageki]

So, you admit you can't address the point, and so discard it entirely just because I'm the one who made it. A classic ad hominem, in other words. Nice to see you admit it.





Probably the only useful thing you've said in this thread.


But, by all means, have the courage of your convictions, and stop paying your taxes. Apparently, the only way you'll actually understand that taxes are actually legal, and that you actually have to pay them, is to have an actual judge tell you to your actual face in an actual trial that you actually have to pay your taxes with actual money, that I'm pretty sure you actually won't have.

Look don't pretend you know anyways. All you did was copy and paste your response from another website.

Pointing out that you are not an attorney or an expert on law is not ad hominen. It's the truth. However you had to resort to a cheap shot at the end i.e. ad hominen.

[fullflavormenthol]

Pointing out that you are not an attorney or an expert on law is not ad hominen. It's the truth.

Well actually it is (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html), because lawyer or not he could still be correct in his argument. It is a mater of the sources that he uses. I may not be an expert on tax law, but if I can qoute several experts that support my argument than my argument is validated by the sources.

However you had to resort to a cheap shot at the end i.e. ad hominen.

Pointing out your use of fallacy isn't a cheapshot, it is merely an attempt to keep the argument honest and within the realm of solid logic.

[kageki]

Provide a link to it please, because none of your earlier links provide any information on one that took place between March 19th and Today (March 23rd).

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/03/nonfiling-is-no-crime-confirms-judge.html

So I did ask for a case number or whatever and Tom Cryer himself responded. Scroll down to bottom in the comments.

I encourage you all to post comments here since you are all making all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. Straight from the source.

[fullflavormenthol]

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/03/nonfiling-is-no-crime-confirms-judge.html

So I did ask for a case number or whatever and Tom Cryer himself responded. Scroll down to bottom in the comments.

I encourage you all to post comments here since you are all making all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. Straight from the source.
Okay, despite the fact that your link is biased...it is still obviously an issue of a lawyer convincing a judge that he is a moron that didn't believe he was liable for income tax. So the ruling was one based on criminal intent, which means he still has to pay the income tax anyway. It doesn't even come close to proving your argument or even approaching evidence.

[kageki]

Okay, despite the fact that your link is biased...it is still obviously an issue of a lawyer convincing a judge that he is a moron that didn't believe he was liable for income tax. So the ruling was one based on criminal intent, which means he still has to pay the income tax anyway. It doesn't even come close to proving your argument or even approaching evidence.

Does it really mean he has to still pay the income tax anyways if he didn't file?

Own up and post a comment there.

[quixotecoyote]

Why should anyone have to post on a blog? It's not the 'source' it's just some guy's slant on it.

[dudalb]

Did Wesley Snipes go to Kageki for Tax Advice?

[kageki]

Why should anyone have to post on a blog? It's not the 'source' it's just some guy's slant on it.

Why should anyone have to post on a forum that is slanted towards anti-CTs?

The source is Tom Cryer who responded on that blog. Tom Cryer is the source and subject of that news article which you are all questioning.

Are you afraid to come out of your little safe den? Own up and post a comment!

[quixotecoyote]

Thought you might enjoy this, even in cases where the evader convinces the jury he was stupid enough to believe tax protester arguments and isn't criminally liable, using frivolous tax protester arguments can get you an $8000 sanction on top of the taxes he still owes and the 20% or greater IRS fine for understating taxes.
Smith v. U.S., 2008 WL 5069783 (5th Cir. 2008) & Cuartero v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 295 Fed. Appx. 378 (2d Cir. 2008)

[quixotecoyote]

Why should anyone have to post on a forum that is slanted towards anti-CTs?


No reason at all. There's the door if you're unhappy.

The source is Tom Cryer who responded on that blog.

The source is the courts and laws that say Cryer has to pay taxes.

[kageki]

No reason at all. There's the door if you're unhappy.



The source is the courts and laws that say Cryer has to pay taxes.

I still hear no response to this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4547107&postcount=145

[Disbelief]

I still hear no response to this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4547107&postcount=145

How about this quote from your source:

Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over. He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful although he could give no specific basis for that finding. Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling, and in that process the court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes.

See the part about the criminal act and that it will go to the FSC for ruling?

[quixotecoyote]

I still hear no response to this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4547107&postcount=145

If you have an argument, post it. I'm not playing guessing games with you about which particular piece of ******* crazy you refer to.

Here's another case like Cryer's where they got acquitted based on intent. This one is actually straight from the sourse:


19 MR. MURPHY: Just one thing, to put Ms. Kuglin

20 on notice, she has got to pay taxes, I think the court

21 ought to instruct her that that is the law. She has got

22 to file returns and --

23 MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, that is going to be

24 cleaned up totally.

25 THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Murphy is not

1 incorrect that it is the law, and I think what he's also

2 saying is there will still be civil penalties.



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VS. VERNICE KUGLIN, NO. 03-20111-Ml
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/kuglin/kuglin_transcript_030808_vol_5.txt

[kageki]

How about this quote from your source:



See the part about the criminal act and that it will go to the FSC for ruling?

I sure do. Pretty exciting huh?

Pretty interesting that it's even going that high if the law is so certain.

[Horatius]

Look don't pretend you know anyways. All you did was copy and paste your response from another website.



All I did? Did you not even bother to read the post that started this line of argument? You know, the post wherein the only cut and paste was the quote I was arguing against? The post of which the majority of the text was my own words and work, based on my understanding of the law that I derived directly from my professional experience in interpretation of laws?

You know, this post right here:


Okay, fine. The argument you posted falls on this one point:





His "cursory review", which he posits is an established point of law, is in fact no such thing. Laws are commonly interpreted in light of common understandings of the terms used, and in particular as those terms have been interpreted by the Courts. There is no requirement that every term used in the law be defined in the law. While that may be considered a "Best Practice", in order to avoid just this sort of non-sense, it is in no way a fundamental requirement.


If you really believe that his argument has merit, why are you still paying income tax? Do you lack the courage of your convictions, or just lack the convictions themselves?


The post that I later supported by referencing a website created by a Law Professor, who makes essentially the same argument I made (independently, mind you) above?

What excuse will you you to ignore his input on the subject?


Pointing out that you are not an attorney or an expert on law is not ad hominen. It's the truth. However you had to resort to a cheap shot at the end i.e. ad hominen.



But you didn't just "point it out", you used it as the sole basis to ignore my entire argument, despite the fact that my argument is legally sound, as shown by the further reference to a third party that has more experience and knowledge than either of us. That's the ad hominem. And it's the ad hominem that's the cheap shot, but thanks for playing.


Just admit, you don't want to admit I might know what I'm talking about, simply because it contradicts your fantasies. Since it's obvious you're incapable of addressing the substance of my arguments.

[quixotecoyote]

Here's another tidbit right from the source, from Cryer's court proceedings:

Fourth Motion to Dismiss
Defendant’s fourth motion to dismiss contends that his income, which was derived
through the practice of law in Louisiana, is not “taxable income” as defined by the Internal
Revenue Code. Defendant’s contention is without merit. SeeCommissioner v. Gleanshaw
Glass Co., 346 U.S. 426 (1955); Londale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981).
See also Sochia v. Federal-Republic's Cent. Government, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 3372509
Page 3 of 3
(W.D.Tex. 2006) and authorities cited therein. The fourth motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 25]
is DENIED.

http://www.websupp.org/data/WDLA/5:06-cr-50164-35-WDLA.pdf

The court that handled Cryer's aquittal specifically rejected the tax-protester arguments as without merit. Shocking, I know.

[Disbelief]

I sure do. Pretty exciting huh?

Pretty interesting that it's even going that high if the law is so certain.

Yes, it is called due process. How else do precedents get established or rulings confirmed if legal proceedings can not continue to the highest levels? So, after he gets smacked down, will you say it was a miscarriage of justice or will you accept the ruling?

[Horatius]

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/03/nonfiling-is-no-crime-confirms-judge.html

So I did ask for a case number or whatever and Tom Cryer himself responded. Scroll down to bottom in the comments.

I encourage you all to post comments here since you are all making all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. Straight from the source.


Reply posted. Let's see if he comes back.

[WildCat]

I can understand that -- Who can truly believe in a place that's Shangri-la, Eden, Shambhala, and Coney Island all wrapped up into one, if you haven't actually been fortunate enough to live there?
I thought I knew what Texas was, I must have been thinking of some other place. One where there will be a school board vote on an anti-evolution school curriculum tomorrow... ;)

[kageki]

Here's another tidbit right from the source, from Cryer's court proceedings:



http://www.websupp.org/data/WDLA/5:06-cr-50164-35-WDLA.pdf

The court that handled Cryer's aquittal specifically rejected the tax-protester arguments as without merit. Shocking, I know.

This is old.

[WildCat]

http://www.truthattack.org
Further proof of my theorem "Any web site with "truth" in the name is full of lies".

[rdaneel]

Um, I just read that PDF file and it says he was found guilty. The closest thing I can find to the claim made on that blog is where the judge says the defendant had no dishonest motive. That's a far cry from saying that he committed "No criminal act". Can you point out exactly where the judge make this claim?

So far I can't find anything in that document that supports the assertions made on that blog.

[quixotecoyote]

This is old.

Court rulings do not magically change after a set period of time. They (and every other court ruling ever) said the tax protester argument was garbage. That doesn't disappear because time goes by.

[fullflavormenthol]

Does it really mean he has to still pay the income tax anyways if he didn't file?

Own up and post a comment there.
No thanks. I don't need to justify myself by posting to every blog run by CT'ists. I have learned a long time ago that tax protestors won't believe anything that goes against them. The federal prisons are sure to have several inmates that would still argue that they don't owe taxes.

Nevertheless, he owes them; and the case only dealt with criminal intent not the legality of tax laws.

[kageki]

Further proof of my theorem "Any web site with "truth" in the name is full of lies".

What about in the title?

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html

[kageki]

Um, I just read that PDF file and it says he was found guilty. The closest thing I can find to the claim made on that blog is where the judge says the defendant had no dishonest motive. That's a far cry from saying that he committed "No criminal act". Can you point out exactly where the judge make this claim?

So far I can't find anything in that document that supports the assertions made on that blog.

It's new.

If you have a question about that new article then post it on that blog.

[quixotecoyote]

Um, I just read that PDF file and it says he was found guilty. The closest thing I can find to the claim made on that blog is where the judge says the defendant had no dishonest motive. That's a far cry from saying that he committed "No criminal act". Can you point out exactly where the judge make this claim?

So far I can't find anything in that document that supports the assertions made on that blog.

What pdf file?

I don't have a link to the decision, but it's all over the news that he got acquitted. Still has to pay, of course, but he's not criminally responsible.

[kageki]

What pdf file?

I don't have a link to the decision, but it's all over the news that he got acquitted. Still has to pay, of course, but he's not criminally responsible.

And you know for sure that he has to pay?

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/03/nonfiling-is-no-crime-confirms-judge.html

[Horatius]

And you know for sure that he has to pay?

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/03/nonfiling-is-no-crime-confirms-judge.html



Posted by someone who is not Tom Cryer, or the other fellow in this current case. I've posted asking if he has a link to the judgement, and we'll see what he has to say.

[Toke]

Well of course the IRS says what they do is legal.:rolleyes:
Yes and they are backed up by people with guns:D

Tax laws are one of the first things a country needs.

The warlords of Somalia and Congo are not quite there yet, and I guess their looting and extortion relugations are rather informal.
Give them a few hundred years and they might develop into goverments offereng more in return for the taxes than not shooting you.

[quixotecoyote]

And you know for sure that he has to pay?


Yep. As has been established, acquittal of criminal charges does not exempt tax evaders from taxes owed.

[Disbelief]

Yep. As has been established, acquittal of criminal charges does not exempt tax evaders from taxes owed.

And as noted from your previously cited case against Kulin, it may take another year to recover the taxes. I believe that it is based on a civil case as opposed to a criminal case.

[quixotecoyote]

And as noted from your previously cited case against Kulin, it may take another year to recover the taxes. I believe that it is based on a civil case as opposed to a criminal case.

Yeah, wheels grinding slowly and all that. I'd assume that the IRS has to sue like anyone else, but they may have an alternate mechanism.

[tsig]

And you know for sure that he has to pay?

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/03/nonfiling-is-no-crime-confirms-judge.html

You may want to contact Kent Hovind. He is getting a hands-on lesson in tax law.

[Horatius]

And you know for sure that he has to pay?

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/03/nonfiling-is-no-crime-confirms-judge.html

Posted by someone who is not Tom Cryer, or the other fellow in this current case. I've posted asking if he has a link to the judgement, and we'll see what he has to say.



Several hours later, and the above referenced post has not shown up on the (moderated) comments page, nor has any response.

Why would a tax protester be reluctant to provide a link to the judgement he speaks so authoritatively on, if it does in fact support his position?

Show me the judgement!

Just show me the judgement that allows these guys to not pay their taxes (as distinct from not being liable for criminal penalties) and I'll shut the hell up.

Show me the judgement!

[Myron Proudfoot]

He was responded to in court. His arguments were found "without merit." That is a polite way to say "laughable."

But I hope you take his advice and refuse to pay taxes.

Because that's the malicious, vindictive kind of guy I am. I am going to try to be a better person, but maybe tomorrow.


hell, if someone I knew (and didn't like) was not paying their taxes because of some stupid militia tax protester crap I'd drop a dime on them to the IRS so fast the phone would melt. And I'd happily pocket any reward money.

[zaphod2016]

Freedom isn't free folks. It takes income taxes.

Fun fact: America prospered without an income tax for nearly 150 years prior to the 16th Amendment.

I support Ron Paul's Don Quixote-esque quest to end the income tax. I support scaling back government accordingly. However, until that fateful day when my opinion becomes majority view, I pay my taxes.

The government holds a lien against my labor.

Read that sentence again, and then tell me how YOU define "freedom".

Of course, the common argument here is "but you get social security, and clean safe roads, and [insert other benefits]"

To which I reply: actually, I don't receive one cent in federal government funds, and never have. And the services provided by government that I do use (ex: federal highways) are funded by special taxes or (police/fire) local property taxes.

I do not oppose ALL taxes, nor do I oppose ALL government, however, I DO oppose the income tax, and fail to understand why the gross majority of you disagree with me.

The ultimate flaw of the income tax is that it penalizes those who work for a living, while allowing those who have already accumulated wealth to play games (i.e. $250,000 in capital gains v. W2 wages). As Warren Buffet said: our income tax system is SO absurd that his secretary pays more income tax than he himself (despite being among the richest in the world) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece).

If the goal is a fair distribution of common financial burden, it seems to me that net worth, not income, is the far more relevant metric. But fairness and equality aside, this strikes at a deeper, more fundamental issue:

The government holds a lien against my labor.

Not as bad as slavery, not as bad as share cropping, but not exactly "freedom" as I would define it either.

Compare this to, say, a tax on cigarettes. I can CHOOSE not to smoke. I can AVOID that tax, and so, calling it "voluntary" is accurate. However, as we all agree, there is nothing "voluntary" about the IRS. The only choice regarding the income tax is this: "do I pay without a fight, or pay with fines and interests after the IRS eventually sues me". The income tax violates the definition of "voluntary", and in my opinion, my own sovereignty over myself.

[kageki]

Fun fact: America prospered without an income tax for nearly 150 years prior to the 16th Amendment.

I support Ron Paul's Don Quixote-esque quest to end the income tax. I support scaling back government accordingly. However, until that fateful day when my opinion becomes majority view, I pay my taxes.

The government holds a lien against my labor.

Read that sentence again, and then tell me how YOU define "freedom".

Of course, the common argument here is "but you get social security, and clean safe roads, and [insert other benefits]"

To which I reply: actually, I don't receive one cent in federal government funds, and never have. And the services provided by government that I do use (ex: federal highways) are funded by special taxes or (police/fire) local property taxes.

I do not oppose ALL taxes, nor do I oppose ALL government, however, I DO oppose the income tax, and fail to understand why the gross majority of you disagree with me.

The ultimate flaw of the income tax is that it penalizes those who work for a living, while allowing those who have already accumulated wealth to play games (i.e. $250,000 in capital gains v. W2 wages). As Warren Buffet said: our income tax system is SO absurd that his secretary pays more income tax than he himself (despite being among the richest in the world) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece).

If the goal is a fair distribution of common financial burden, it seems to me that net worth, not income, is the far more relevant metric. But fairness and equality aside, this strikes at a deeper, more fundamental issue:

The government holds a lien against my labor.

Not as bad as slavery, not as bad as share cropping, but not exactly "freedom" as I would define it either.

Compare this to, say, a tax on cigarettes. I can CHOOSE not to smoke. I can AVOID that tax, and so, calling it "voluntary" is accurate. However, as we all agree, there is nothing "voluntary" about the IRS. The only choice regarding the income tax is this: "do I pay without a fight, or pay with fines and interests after the IRS eventually sues me". The income tax violates the definition of "voluntary", and in my opinion, my own sovereignty over myself.

Well said. This documentary covers similar ground:

How to Keep 100% of Your Earnings
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2398389779813975826&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en

[quixotecoyote]

Well said. This documentary covers similar ground:


No, it doesn't.

Zaphod is discussing why Americans should not have to pay income tax.

Your link is trying to claim that Americans do not have to pay income tax.

Can you spot the difference?

[kageki]

No, it doesn't.

Zaphod is discussing why Americans should not have to pay income tax.

Your link is trying to claim that Americans do not have to pay income tax.

Can you spot the difference?

How can you criticize it, if you haven't watched it?

I stated "similar ground" such like the notion that we didn't always have an income tax.

[Horatius]

No, it doesn't.

Zaphod is discussing why Americans should not have to pay income tax.

Your link is trying to claim that Americans do not have to pay income tax.

Can you spot the difference?



Exactly. As I said earlier, and as Zaphod has shown, you can argue that income tax is a bad idea, and that other taxes are better, but that's not what these Dumb As Dirt tax protesters do. They just stick their fingers in their ears and chant, "La la la! I can't hear you so I don't have to pay my taxes!"

[quixotecoyote]

How can you criticize it, if you haven't watched it?

Because I flipped through to see if they were arguing policy or trying to tell people they didn't have to pay taxes. Granted, I could have just read the video title, but for you, I'll go the extra mile.

I stated "similar ground" such like the notion that we didn't always have an income tax.

So apart from the completely different contexts, intents, and arguments, they shared a background point. Good job.

[kageki]

Because I flipped through to see if they were arguing policy or trying to tell people they didn't have to pay taxes. Granted, I could have just read the video title, but for you, I'll go the extra mile.



So apart from the completely different contexts, intents, and arguments, they shared a background point. Good job.

Which is what I said in the first place...

[quixotecoyote]

Well said. This documentary covers similar ground:


So apart from the completely different contexts, intents, and arguments, they shared a background point. Good job.


Which is what I said in the first place...

That quote is calling you a liar.

[kageki]

That quote is calling you a liar.

Which? Quote is singular, but you quoted more then one.

[quixotecoyote]

Which? Quote is singular, but you quoted more then one.

The one where you say a video says something that it doesn't.

and

The one where you say you said something you didn't say.

I leave further clarification as an exercise for the reader.

[Arus808]

Show me the judgement!

psst. its JUDGMENT .. not judgement ... minor nitpick.

[quixotecoyote]

psst. its JUDGMENT .. not judgement ... minor nitpick.

My two friends Merriam and Webster would like a word with you out back.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment :

Main Entry: judg·ment
Variant(s): or judge·ment

[Horatius]

psst. its JUDGMENT .. not judgement ... minor nitpick.



Well, perhaps among you traitorous republicans, but amongst us Loyalists, it's still acceptable to spell it the proper way. (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/judgement.html) [/CommonwealthSupremacist]

[Horatius]

psst. its JUDGMENT .. not judgement ... minor nitpick.

My two friends Merriam and Webster would like a word with you out back.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment :

Main Entry: judg·ment
Variant(s): or judge·ment



Variant? Variant? Variant? You sir, are a bounder and a cad, and certainly are no Judge of whisky. Note, there is no "e" in whisky either, unless you're discussing some inferior version.


:uk::can::uk::uk:

[SimpleIrony]

Note, there is no "e" in whisky either, unless you're discussing some inferior version.


Ahem... Canadian Rye Whisky is not an inferior version, and it most certainly has an "e".

[quixotecoyote]

Variant? Variant? Variant? You sir, are a bounder and a cad, and certainly are no Judge of whisky. Note, there is no "e" in whisky either, unless you're discussing some inferior version.


:uk::can::uk::uk:

I'd offer to make up our difference over a cup of tea, as I understand you, -ahem- blokes, are partial to that, but there seems to have been some sort of a mix up at the anchorage, Indians and whatnot.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1026149c9af5a9b0c3.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15784)

eta: And just in case kageki or zaphod is about to make a comment about irony, I've got the "join or die" flag on standby.

[Horatius]

Ahem... Canadian Rye Whisky is not an inferior version, and it most certainly has an "e".



Unless you're referring to the word "Rye", I'm just going to have to do this ....


:dl:



;)

[BenBurch]

I think we ought to tax assets, not income.

[zaphod2016]

I think we ought to tax assets, not income.

Or, perhaps we should tax consumption, i.e. something along the lines of a VAT tax.

I think I would prefer VAT to asset taxes. Here's why: say I want to save up money to buy a home or start a business. The less taxes I pay, the quicker I can act- either a) support the lagging real-estate market (buy a house) or b) begin creating jobs (start a business)

Compare this to, say, someone who buys an $80,000 sports car. That also supports the economy of course, but not nearly as much as a new small business or home owner (now paying property taxes).

In other words, how much money a citizen has is certainly a factor, but so too is their plans for that money, and the ultimate effect of that plan on society. I am not attempting to defend "trickle down", but rather, stating the obvious fact that right now we need jobs more than anything, and in the USA, most of those jobs will come from small business. Anything that postpones or prevents a small business from expanding workforce is making our situation worse, not better.

Disclosure: small business owner, obviously biased.

[Disbelief]

Or, perhaps we should tax consumption, i.e. something along the lines of a VAT tax.

I think I would prefer VAT to asset taxes. Here's why: say I want to save up money to buy a home or start a business. The less taxes I pay, the quicker I can act- either a) support the lagging real-estate market (buy a house) or b) begin creating jobs (start a business)

Compare this to, say, someone who buys an $80,000 sports car. That also supports the economy of course, but not nearly as much as a new small business or home owner (now paying property taxes).

In other words, how much money a citizen has is certainly a factor, but so too is their plans for that money, and the ultimate effect of that plan on society. I am not attempting to defend "trickle down", but rather, stating the obvious fact that right now we need jobs more than anything, and in the USA, most of those jobs will come from small business. Anything that postpones or prevents a small business from expanding workforce is making our situation worse, not better.

Disclosure: small business owner, obviously biased.

What items are then taxed? Wouldn't taxing consumption still put a larger burden on the poor because they are paying the same amount of tax for TP, soap, etc that the wealthy pay?

[Horatius]

What items are then taxed? Wouldn't taxing consumption still put a larger burden on the poor because they are paying the same amount of tax for TP, soap, etc that the wealthy pay?



Well, this will always be a contentious issue, but here in Canada, our GST, which is sort of a national sales tax, isn't applied to more basic grocery items, for just that reason.

Of course, it's also legitimate to ask if we can raise enough revenue through such taxes alone, without making things so expensive we kill our tourism industry, and encourage even more cross-border shopping.

[Disbelief]

Well, this will always be a contentious issue, but here in Canada, our GST, which is sort of a national sales tax, isn't applied to more basic grocery items, for just that reason.

Of course, it's also legitimate to ask if we can raise enough revenue through such taxes alone, without making things so expensive we kill our tourism industry, and encourage even more cross-border shopping.

I knew that it would be contentious, and the reason I was asking the question. Just curious where he would draw the line and who decides what is/is not taxable. Using TP as an example, would he tax it, not tax it or maybe limit it to non-generics?

[NoZed Avenger]

While a more interesting topic (because there is actually room for debate), what should be taxed and how is a different discussion from whether the current taxes must be paid.

[Disbelief]

While a more interesting topic (because there is actually room for debate), what should be taxed and how is a different discussion from whether the current taxes must be paid.

You are correct. I apologize for contributing to the derail.

[NoZed Avenger]

You are correct. I apologize for contributing to the derail.

I can't blame you for wanting to introduce a topic with some actual room for debate, but I'd hate to bury the posts showing that even the anti-tax hero cited previously had his legal arguments dismissed as without merit.

[Alex Libman]

And in a society without a Government, whoever has the most guns will rule.

Your statement actually reads "in a society without VIOLENCE, whoever has the most guns will rule". Government is just another word for violence. If someone initiates aggression, they become government. If government stops initiating aggression, then it's no longer government, but merely a voluntary organization or a church of some sort.

And no one could possibly do worse than the current governments, which exist on the basis of an irrational religion (i.e. monarchy, democracy, etc). Once shattered, this illusion would be pretty darn hard to rebuild. We've been through the "what if Bill Gates tries to take over the world" scenarios many times, they are laughable.


I know that wrecks you little anarchist fantasy, but reality sucks.

You should read more. Many a fool thinks himself smarter than everybody else. And look at the substance of ideas, not their popularity.

[Disbelief]

Posted by someone who is not Tom Cryer, or the other fellow in this current case. I've posted asking if he has a link to the judgement, and we'll see what he has to say.

Here is the latest from Mark at the blog:

I arranged to get the judgment (the document itself).

[dudalb]

Your statement actually reads "in a society without VIOLENCE, whoever has the most guns will rule". Government is just another word for violence. If someone initiates aggression, they become government. If government stops initiating aggression, then it's no longer government, but merely a voluntary organization or a church of some sort.

And no one could possibly do worse than the current governments, which exist on the basis of an irrational religion (i.e. monarchy, democracy, etc). Once shattered, this illusion would be pretty darn hard to rebuild. We've been through the "what if Bill Gates tries to take over the world" scenarios many times, they are laughable.




You should read more. Many a fool thinks himself smarter than everybody else. And look at the substance of ideas, not their popularity.

How about looking at how ideas would work in reality, rather then in some A.fantasy land or B. a college or internet bull session (and often A and B are the same thing).

As for violence...violence is a part of human nature, friend. Their will always be a certain percentage who will resort to it to get whan they want. Explain
again how society protects it self agains them without a police force and legal system.

Many a fool thinks himself smarter than everybody else.

Oh, the irony.
I note that whenever somebody talks about how unrealisic your ideas are, you don't offer evidence to refute them but go into a ideological rant.

[Skeptic]

Folks -- as usual, the Tax Protestor "victory" is anything but.

The man was acquitted in a CRIMINAL trial of the FELONY of willful tax evasion, because he used the so-called "Cheek defense" (after the defendant who first used it "succesfully") -- namely, he argued that he was really, truly, too much of a dumbass to realize he had to pay income tax.

Since the felony requires that the jury be convinced that the defendant knew he was supposed to pay taxes, he was acquitted of the crime.

However, of course, he is STILL LIABLE FOR THE INCOME TAX. He still has to pay the back taxes, penalties, interest, etc., etc., etc. He simply won't ALSO go to jail for it as well. (Of course, if he continued not to pay, he might be prosecuted again, and this time the Cheek defense will fail due to his previous experience of the court telling him that, yes, he is on notice that he has to pay income tax).

Some "victory".

But then again, this is more or less the only tax protestor "victory" they ever get -- sometimes, rarely, the tax protestor avoids jail (though he still has to pay the tax, of course) by convincing the jury he is as incredibly stupid as his "I don't have to pay" arguments make him look, and he isn't just claiming this in order to not pay without believing it.

[dudalb]

The Anti Income tax movement amazes me in that they continue to get it bass ackward.
If you hate the Income tax, then campaign to have it repealed. Don't use a bunch of stupid legal tactics that have failed to work time and time again.

[Skeptic]

Also there is a slight difference between the founding fathers and the tax protestors. The founding fathers KNEW they were breaking British law. They didn't claim they found a convoluted legal argument based on some obscure british law dictionary's defintion that magically makes them all tax-free "legally".

[Alex Libman]

How about looking at how ideas would work in reality, rather then in some A.fantasy land or B. a college or internet bull session (and often A and B are the same thing).

Whenever a country that has even slightly more economic or personal freedom succeeds over a country that has less, my ideas are in part validated. They are validated by the collapse of totalitarianism world-wide, by the failure of communism, by people who are willing to relocate half a world away for better economic opportunities, and so on. I'm taking the next logical step, and I'm doing so as an individual action, without forcing it on anyone else. If the church can fall, so can the state.


As for violence...violence is a part of human nature, friend.

Yes, but it clearly is a negative aspect of human nature, and whereas I am looking for ways to discourage violence you only seem to be justifying it.


Their will always be a certain percentage who will resort to it to get whan they want. Explain again how society protects it self agains them without a police force and legal system.

I'm really tired of repeating myself to people who lack the intellectual curiosity even to read my past posts here, much less actually read some scholarly works on the subject.


[...] The founding fathers KNEW they were breaking British law. [...]

I know I'm breaking the American (un-natural) law. Please don't lump all tax resisters into one category. My Anarcho-Capitalist friends tend to be very disappointed with the stupidity of the "if I kiss my massa's butt just the way he likes it he'll set me free" mentality.

[tsig]

psst. its JUDGMENT .. not judgement ... minor nitpick.

Not when you put in Caps and Color. Special rules apply.

[tsig]

Your statement actually reads "in a society without VIOLENCE, whoever has the most guns will rule". Government is just another word for violence. If someone initiates aggression, they become government. If government stops initiating aggression, then it's no longer government, but merely a voluntary organization or a church of some sort.

And no one could possibly do worse than the current governments, which exist on the basis of an irrational religion (i.e. monarchy, democracy, etc). Once shattered, this illusion would be pretty darn hard to rebuild. We've been through the "what if Bill Gates tries to take over the world" scenarios many times, they are laughable.




You should read more. Many a fool thinks himself smarter than everybody else. And look at the substance of ideas, not their popularity.

So you think you're smarter than everybody else?

What for will this government take that is not "(i.e. monarchy, democracy, etc)".

[Alex Libman]

So you think you're smarter than everybody else?

No one is smarter than everybody else, except on some very narrow issues. And I am not the best representative of Anarcho-Capitalism, not even close. But in the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is at advantage.


What for will this government take that is not "(i.e. monarchy, democracy, etc)".

I didn't understand what you said, please rephrase.

[Horatius]

But in the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is at advantage.



You just couldn't bring yourself to say "King", could you? :)

[KingMerv00]

Even if there weren't a statute, there sure as hell is enough common law to back it up.

I kid you not...at this very moment, I am on my way to my federal income tax law class. Perhaps the CTists would like to joint me?

But...but..there is no law!!!!!!!!!

:D

.....well sure there is.

No there isn't!!!!!!!

...its right here...read it.

But..but..there is no law!!!!!

What CTist really need to understand is that common law IS law. Courts DO legislate from the bench...sorry.

[zaphod2016]

Well, this will always be a contentious issue, but here in Canada, our GST, which is sort of a national sales tax, isn't applied to more basic grocery items, for just that reason.

I was under the impression the VAT was somewhat like a luxury tax, where staples and necessities are exempt. That seems like a better deal for the working poor, and it would appear to divert the greatest tax liability to those with the most disposable income.

I.e. if a person is barely scraping together enough cash to feed their kids, the last thing we should do is make it harder for them by taxing. After all, if we eliminate the ability of the working poor to support themselves, we as a society are then doomed to make up the difference anyway (subsidized housing, food programs, etc. or failing that, law enforcement and prisons- either way, we as a society will pay)

On the other end of the spectrum, people who enjoy a few thousand worth of disposable income every month are in a very different position. A tax on a sports car or hotel or restaurant seem a lot more reasonable than a tax on bread or baby food.


Of course, it's also legitimate to ask if we can raise enough revenue through such taxes alone, without making things so expensive we kill our tourism industry, and encourage even more cross-border shopping.

I think the answer to this question depends greatly on what you want the role of government to be. I understand my proposed tax system will likely decrease total net revenue to the state, however, as a person in favor of a reduced, limited government, I am ok with that, and accept that trade-off. If I worked as a research scientist, and depended on federal grants, I would likely hold the opposite view.

Also: the VAT is far from perfect. A friend of mine in France hates the VAT tax because, according to him, it can be quite arbitrary which items are classified as "luxury". An example he gave: some brands of wine have an unfair competitive advantage because they are not taxed as luxury items, usually as the result of cronyism or favoritism.

Sorry if this is a derail, but I think the tax protestor movement needs to focus on alternative solutions, rather than misinterpretations of law, if they seek to change things.

Like someone above said: President Washington didn't pay his income tax either, and he certainly didn't pretend as if that decision was based on British common law. If a person refuses to pay taxes, and considers that an act of civil disobedience, I am with them in spirit. However: it IS a violation f the law. That IS the defining trait of civil disobedience.

[se7ensnakes]

It does not appear that any of you actually know enough to discuss the issue of the income tax. In reality there is not a law that makes most working americans liable. The law must state the subject of the tax. It is rediculous to assume that the government can actually create a law without stating what exactly is being taxed. If you feel that there is a law that plain makes reference to the subject of the federal income tax, please state it. Other wise we can then agree that there is no such law.

[se7ensnakes]

Kageki
The 16th Amendment did not crate the income tax.
Before you challenge me, please learn the definition of the word "NO".

[parky76]

It does not appear that any of you actually know enough to discuss the issue of the income tax. In reality there is not a law that makes most working americans liable. .

Its called the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It was legally ratified by the required number of states in 1913 and then ratified by 12 more states after that.

Anyone who believes that we as Americans are not required to abide by the 16th Amendment, or any other Amendment for that matter, is calling for sedition.

[se7ensnakes]

Kingmerv actually believe that tax liability could swiftly come from the judges seat. Imagine that!

[se7ensnakes]

parky the 16th amendment did not create the income tax. do you know the meaning of the word "NO"?

[NoZed Avenger]

It does not appear that any of you actually know enough to discuss the issue of the income tax. In reality there is not a law that makes most working americans liable. The law must state the subject of the tax. It is rediculous to assume that the government can actually create a law without stating what exactly is being taxed. If you feel that there is a law that plain makes reference to the subject of the federal income tax, please state it. Other wise we can then agree that there is no such law.


So you didn't actually read the thread at all then, did you?

Can you cite your authority for why "the government can [not] actually create a law without stating what exactly is being taxed" and what that phrase is supposed to even mean?

And while we're at it, try this:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

[oldhat]

The law must state the subject of the tax. It is rediculous to assume that the government can actually create a law without stating what exactly is being taxed. If you feel that there is a law that plain makes reference to the subject of the federal income tax, please state it.

The source clause of the 16th Amendment. HTH.

[se7ensnakes]

U.S. Supreme Court
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company
No. 359
Argued October 14, 15, 1915
Decided February 21, 1916
240 U.S. 103
"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed..."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html (http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html)

[se7ensnakes]

Do you people even know the meaning of the word "No"?

[NoZed Avenger]

It does not appear that any of you actually know enough to discuss the issue of the income tax.

So, have you earned enough in the past 3 years to file income tax returns (if a US citizen)?

If so, have you filed?

If not, how about notifying the IRS about it and making your arguments officially to them, as opposed to some people on the internet without sufficient knowledge to discuss the issue. Presumably *someone* at the IRS will know enough to hold discussions with you.

[se7ensnakes]

no zed...you posted what you think is the law...Please cite here the specifics of the law where it makes reference to the subject.

[dudalb]

It does not appear that any of you actually know enough to discuss the issue of the income tax. In reality there is not a law that makes most working americans liable. The law must state the subject of the tax. It is rediculous to assume that the government can actually create a law without stating what exactly is being taxed. If you feel that there is a law that plain makes reference to the subject of the federal income tax, please state it. Other wise we can then agree that there is no such law.

A lot of people have used this argument to try to explain failure to pay their income tax, and they either end up with having to pay their tax with some very heavy fines added, doing time in Jail, or both.

[parky76]

Do you people even know the meaning of the word "No"?

the SCOTUS has found again and again, that the 16th Amendment is legal and does require all citizens of the USA and all those who earn any income in the USA, to pay Federal income taxes.

don't like it? take it up with the SCOTUS.

My uncle worked for the IRS. He was miserable there. But he thinks tax-protesters are very very stupid and will be very very sorry.

[se7ensnakes]

nozed if I did not file I will quickly be in a court that will subject me to jurors, my peers, who are totally ignorant about the federal income tax and will must likely have no clue what is going on and will just as surely agree that I should not be allow to "get away with it" and thereby find me guilty. The government would not have to present any law!

[NoZed Avenger]

U.S. Supreme Court
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company
No. 359
Argued October 14, 15, 1915
Decided February 21, 1916
240 U.S. 103
"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed..."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html (http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html)

Sweet Jesu. The more important parts to quote:

The Income Tax Law of 1913 is not unconstitutional as not conforming with, or being beyond the authority of, the Sixteenth Amendment. Brushaber v. Un. P. R. Co., ante, p. 240 U. S. 1.

and

Brushaber v. Un. P. R. Co., ante, p. 240 U. S. 1, followed to effect that the district court has jurisdiction of an action by a stockholder against the corporation to enjoin it from voluntarily paying the tax under the Income Tax Law of 1913 on the ground of its unconstitutionality.

This Court has, under § 238, Jud.Code, jurisdiction of a direct appeal from the judgment of the district court refusing to enjoin a corporation from paying the tax under the Income Tax Law of 1913, in a suit brought by a stockholder on the ground of unconstitutionality of the statute.

* * *
As it follows from what we have said that the contentions are in substance and effect controlled by the Brushaber case, and, insofar as this may not be the case, are without merit, it results that, for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case and those expressed in this, the judgment must be, and it is,

Affirmed.


So the S Ct upheld the constitutionality of the income tax.

And this is your best evidence *against* it?


Is this some college initiation prank or something?

[oldhat]

Do you people even know the meaning of the word "No"?

There's something so juvenile about thinking your magically exempt from society and paying your fair share of taxes because you can come up with some screwy legal argument no one takes seriously.

Slackers and freeloaders really make my blood boil.

[NoZed Avenger]

nozed if I did not file I will quickly be in a court that will subject me to jurors, my peers, who are totally ignorant about the federal income tax and will must likely have no clue what is going on and will just as surely agree that I should not be allow to "get away with it" and thereby find me guilty. The government would not have to present any law!


And the judge would be too stupid to see that, as well.

And the prosecutor.

And no one here is smart enough to follow your argument.


Hm.

That *is* a problem.


Have you ever heard what they say about someone with an opinion where they are in a minority of one?

[se7ensnakes]

parky I posted a specific case, mind you a unanimous case where the SCOTUS says exactly opposite of what you are saying. Once again, do you know the meaning of the word "NO"?
The 16th Amendment did not create the income tax..."the Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO new power of taxation"

[se7ensnakes]

Nozed you failed to read my posting...please read carefully....make MOST working americans liable...(see up above)

[NoZed Avenger]

no zed...you posted what you think is the law...Please cite here the specifics of the law where it makes reference to the subject.


It was a single page.

I did you the courtesy of reading through the Supreme Court opinion that you didn't understand.



So college prank, then?

High school?

[se7ensnakes]

nozed not everyone is ignorant of the legal issue regarding the income tax, but it is an intricate situation where you have to go in front of ignorant jurors and present your case.

[oldhat]

Are you a lawyer, se7ensnakes? Because I don't think you understand what you're citing when you're pulling quotes out of Stanton.

You're not even citing the holding. Do you know what a holding is?

[se7ensnakes]

Nozed you presenting to arguments ...but you are not aware of them. Let me clarify for you:
1) The 16th Amendment did not create the income tax.
2) Those who are subject to the Federal Income Tax are listed in title 26. Those who are liable, the subject of the tax is readily stated and not obsfucated.

Are you braking from the first argument and proceeding to the second argument? Do you then agree that the 16th Amendment did not create the income tax? You are still having problem with the word "NO"?
If you are having problems with the word "NO", how can we logically continue to the second argument?

[se7ensnakes]

oldhat you committing the same error as nozed, you are jumping the discussion...
before we continue i want to make you sure you understand that the 16th amendment did not create the income tax...or are you having problems with the word "NO" also?
Try to be clear...dont jump around...

[oldhat]

before we continue i want to make you sure you understand that the 16th amendment did not create the income tax...or are you having problems with the word "NO" also?

LOL, beg the question (http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html) much?

Are you a lawyer or do you have any legal training? I sincerely hope not because I'm cringing watching you try to cite Stanton without knowing what you're doing.

[se7ensnakes]

When you finish pondering on the word "NO" and realize that "NO" means "NO". I will return. You must agree that the 16th amendment did not create the income tax. Once you and I agree that you can read and know the meaning of the word "NO", then we can proceed to the second part of the Federal Income Tax Argument.
I will try to log in again tomorrow...

[oldhat]

"Unil you beg the question, I will not listen to you not beg the question, unless you start begging the question."

Great argument se7ensnakes!

http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html
http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html
http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html
http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html

[se7ensnakes]

oldhat how much education do you think you need to know the meaning of the word "NO"? Do you think you need to have a PHD as to the varied meaning of the word "NO". Tell me...what problems are you having with the word "NO". Please talk to me...

[oldhat]

1. Are you a lawyer?
2. If not, do you have any training in con law or tax law?
3. If not, do you know what a holding is?
4. If not, do you know what procedural disposition is?

[se7ensnakes]

Am not begging the question...I am trying to be clear so you can actually understand what is to follow in the case. Not understanding the meaning of the word "NO" leaves you pretty much incapable of understanding the rest of the case. I know the entire case extremely well, but how can I continue if you are having a problem with a simple word "NO"?

[se7ensnakes]

oldhat you are still digressing...stick to the subject at hand...we are discussing the 16th Amendment...nothing else matters, not who I am, Just that one quote from the Supreme Court. We will get to the rest of the case...right now we are discussing the 16th Amendment....and you are fighting hard to acknowledge the word "NO". You are fighting hard to acknowledge the simplicity of the sentence. It is not an elaborate sentence. Surely you can come to terms that if the Supreme Court plainly states that the 16th amendment did not create the income tax, then it must be so. exactly how much education do you need to know what "NO" means?

[oldhat]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?linkurl=%3C%linkurl%%3E&graphurl=%3C%graphurl%%3E&friend=%3C%20riend%%3E&court=us&vol=240&invol=103

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.

You would literally get laughed out of court if you appeared pro se and tried to cite Stanton because you don't want to pay your taxes. You don't even understand what the court is talking about, do you? You're picking out a line that seems to ring a bell to you and ignore everything else.

Do you have even a basic understand of what White was trying to say in the complete text I just quote? I highly doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time making ridiculous and frankly embarrassingly bad arguments that even 99% of laymen can see through.

[NoZed Avenger]

oldhat, before you spend too much more time on this thread, you may want to check out the last tax thread from se7ensnakes:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70859

I think you'll recognize much of the words there.

Also, many useful citations to sources such as. . .

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

. . .that would be ignored here as quickly as they were there.

N/A

[parky76]

Am not begging the question...I am trying to be clear so you can actually understand what is to follow in the case. Not understanding the meaning of the word "NO" leaves you pretty much incapable of understanding the rest of the case. I know the entire case extremely well, but how can I continue if you are having a problem with a simple word "NO"?

is this all you have?

"No"??

tell us you have more then that.

does the SCOTUS say that the Federal income tax is legal? yes it does.

deal with it...and pay your taxes like a good citizen.