Man fasts on steps of I.R.S. ?

[michaellee]

Last week, my local AM radio station reported:

Until the I.R.S. answers or responds to his tax related question, a taxpayer will continue to fast on the steps outside I.R.S. headquarters. The man has fasted for 40 days waiting for an I.R.S. response.

Does anyone know the details of this story?
What is the man's question and why doesn't the I.R.S. answer it?

Anyone?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by michaellee
Last week, my local AM radio station reported:

Until the I.R.S. answers or responds to his tax related question, a taxpayer will continue to fast on the steps outside I.R.S. headquarters. The man has fasted for 40 days waiting for an I.R.S. response.

Does anyone know the details of this story?
What is the man's question and why doesn't the I.R.S. answer it?

Anyone?

I was monitoring the guy's situation remotely, like I do with any other revolutionary activity in the nation-state. It is interesting that you should bring it up. The leftist media didn't give the guy any air-time.

His name is Gene Chapman, he is from Texas and he fasted because he wanted the IRS to explain where his tax liability was in the law. Basically the question is this:

Where is the indivudal tax liability in the federal laws of the United States?

If I am not mistake he ended his tax fasting-protest after 75 days.

JK

[michaellee]

Where is the indivudal tax liability in the federal laws of the United States?

So what's the problem? Surely not our "friendlier, customer service oriented I.R.S." They would rather see a man starve himself to death rather than just answer his simple question?
Is this new policy I have yet to hear about?

Isn't the I.R.S. better off to just answer his question and avoid any publicity of this type?

Or is it they did not answer because they could not answer?
Maybe he should have phrased the question in a true/false format.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I was monitoring the guy's situation remotelyYou mean you were watching the news.

[Attrayant]

And lest anybody think he has a lucid brain cell in his head, here is his web site:

http://www.in-austin.com/death-fast/

Chapman was inspired by Irwin Schiff (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/March/03_tax_167.htm), for chrissakes.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Martinm
You mean you were watching the news.

If you say so.

JK

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Martinm
You mean you were watching the news.

Zing!!! :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by michaellee
Does anyone know the details of this story?


This is the first I have heard of it. But one fact is apparent from your description - the guy is an idiot. Most likely a right wing loony and religious nut. Do I win a million for my psychic ability?

Originally posted by michaellee

What is the man's question...


Don't know.

Originally posted by michaellee

...and why doesn't the I.R.S. answer it?


Do you respond to loony toons? Then why would you expect the IRS to do it?

[michaellee]

Lucidity, web sites and Irwin Schiff-

Granted, Chapman's site is somewhat odd, and I viewed the Schiff link and find that info interesting, but not to stray too far...

I do not understand Chapman's "plight" in this matter.

Am I missing some other motives on his or the I.R.S. plate?

This "fast" should never occured.

Should not one with average intelligence deem the following hypothetical exchange with the I.R.S. something possible?

Chapman: "Hello. Internal Revenue? "

IRS: "Yes, how may I assist you?"

Chapman: "I am a US taxpaying citizen and have a real basic question that I can't seem to find an answer to anywhere."

IRS: "What is your question?"

Chapman: "Well first I read the tax packet and it tells me where to research for answers before calling you. I tried every resource listed, and now find myself staring at the actual Internal Revenue Code book and still cannot seem to find what I am looking for. I am reading Sec. 6011, General requirement of return, statement, or list

(a) General rule

When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary....'

I understand this to say that when required by regulations, if I am made liable for any taxes imposed, I must file a tax return.

Therefore, my question is: Which or what regulation(s) make me liable for any taxes imposed?"

IRS: I can answer that question for you sir. Section xxx, paragraph xxx, lines xx is the regulation which makes you liable for the tax."

Chapman:"Thank you very much, goodbye"


End of story, as I see it. All that remains is to fill in the xxx's

[Whomp]

Seems easy enough! Does anyone know the answers?

Any tax preparer's out there?

[Attrayant]

Yes, somebody knows the answers. For all kinds of hairbrained excuses that people have tried to come up with over the years to avoid paying taxes, kindly see the Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html).

Specifically with regard to Chapman's "question":

In its various subsections, section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. .."

As explained in the regulations:

"Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word "impose" means "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy." So how can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can't. If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.

In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on upaid taxes as a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the self-evident proposition that "The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation...." U.S. v. Childs, 266 U.S. 304 (1924).

Also, section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return "shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return." The Supreme Court has held that the United States may enforce a stamp tax through a suit to collect the amount of the tax from the person required to pay the tax, even though the statute did not impose any personal liability for the tax, stating: "When a statute says that a person shall pay a given tax, it obviously imposes upon that person the duty to pay..." U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 US 250 (1910).

It goes on to quote a specific ruling from Schiff v. United States:

"The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required."

[snip]

"Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax 'liability.' The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is 'hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual' (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between 'imposing' a tax and creating a 'liability' for a tax, there is no difference...

Chapman's behaviour is sophomoric, equivalent to a child with its arms crossed and nose turned up, saying "I'm not gonna do this unless somebody tells me why I gotta". He would have his answer if he went to a library and opened a friggin' book.

In fact, it's worse, because the IRS has answered his question on their Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=98269,00.html) page. The only thing the IRS hasn't done is wrap up the answer in a pretty package, tie a bow around it and hand-deliver it to Chapman.

[Malachi151]

I always wondered what these poeple thought they would achieve?

They think that they can use some kind of circular logic to prove that income taxes are not Constitutional? So, let's just ASSUME that they proved this to be true. Then what.

Well, then the Constitution would be amended again, and that would be the end of it.

Let's suppost that they could prove somehow that tax are "wrong", then what? Okay government goes away and we go into anarchy, weee. I mean, what is the point to all this?