Americans, stop paying income tax. You don't have to.

[plumjam]

If you're American please watch this documentary. It's a real eye-opener. There is NO LAW.
You can even watch if you aren't american. I won't be checking up.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=0

[Miss Anthrope]

Plumjam, in a nutshell, you're completely wrong.

The search function is your friend. Try IRS, Hovind, et al, et cetera.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Miss Anthrope

Plumjam, in a nutshell, you're completely wrong.

The search function is your friend. Try IRS, Hovind, et al, et cetera.

interesting, where is the law?
have you watched the documentary?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by plumjam

interesting, where is the law?
have you watched the documentary?

I doubt that the IRS would agree with you - but I also would love to see the law in question...

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by plumjam

interesting, where is the law?
have you watched the documentary?

People ARE going to jail for this.

Quote:

Tax Scams/Consumer Alerts

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!" Seek professional advice from the IRS or a Tax Professional before you subscribe to any scheme that offers exemption from your obligation as a United States Citizen to pay taxes. Buying into a tax evasion scheme can be very costly.

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by RandFan

People ARE going to jail for this.



The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

well what would you EXPECT the IRS to say?
watch the video

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by plumjam

well what would you EXPECT the IRS to say?
watch the video

I will say this as clearly and suscinctly as I can.

People - are - going - to - jail - over - this.

Got it?

I was curious about this at one time. I went to a meeting 10 years ago. The woman who conducted the meeting is now in jail.

Folks, please, I hate taxes, get the truth. Judges ARE sending people to jail. It's not a scare tactic. It's not the IRS pulling the wool over your eyes.

[RandFan]

1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, “although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.”

In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that Royal Lamarr Hardy was sentenced to a 156-month prison term for, among other things, selling a tax evasion scheme called the “Reliance Defense” that incorrectly asserted the income tax laws were voluntary (i.e., the laws imposed no legal obligation to pay tax or file a return). Hardy was also ordered to pay a fine of $59,267.88, costs of prosecution in the amount of $59,267.88, and restitution to the IRS for $197,555. See 2005 TNT 169-12 (Aug. 31, 2005).
Relevant Case Law:

Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[i]n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil] sanctions.”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court held that “[a]ny assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit.”

United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986) – the court upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.”

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) – the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary “was rejected in

United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), wherein the court described appellant’s argument as ‘an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit.’”

Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) – the court rejected the claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a “‘tax protester’ type” argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty for failure to file a return.

Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468, 471 (1999) – the court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty and rejected his argument “that the tax system is voluntary so that he cannot be forced to comply” as “frivolous.”

[RandFan]

BTW,

This thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by plumjam

well what would you EXPECT the IRS to say?
watch the video

So, when the US constitution was specifically amended to allow income tax, when the government body charged to collect income tax (under a code which has weight of law) clearly sets out it's rules for collecting tax and the penalties for not paying tax, when the courts- including the supreme court- the body which gets to interpret the constitution, all say that federal income tax is constitutional, legally required and enforceable- what grounds is tehre to say otherwise.
In short the people who get to make, interpret and enforce the rules says its a rule, how can they be wrong?


I have seen this fantasy, their main case rests on the fact that the IRS has a "code" rather than a "law". Except that very few pieces of legislation are officially called "laws".

Plumjam, can you tell me which law says that in the UK you shouldn't drive through a red traffic light? If you cant find said law, does that mean that you shoudl not face criminal sanction for doing so? By what political or legal theory do you base this on.

[KoihimeNakamura]

If it makes you feel any better, plumjam, making under 5k a year (which, for the last two years, I have qualifed for) means you do not file for income taxes. So, if you make barely anything...

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by RandFan

1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, “although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.”

In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that Royal Lamarr Hardy was sentenced to a 156-month prison term for, among other things, selling a tax evasion scheme called the “Reliance Defense” that incorrectly asserted the income tax laws were voluntary (i.e., the laws imposed no legal obligation to pay tax or file a return). Hardy was also ordered to pay a fine of $59,267.88, costs of prosecution in the amount of $59,267.88, and restitution to the IRS for $197,555. See 2005 TNT 169-12 (Aug. 31, 2005).
Relevant Case Law:

Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[i]n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil] sanctions.”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court held that “[a]ny assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit.”

United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986) – the court upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.”

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) – the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary “was rejected in

United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), wherein the court described appellant’s argument as ‘an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit.’”

Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) – the court rejected the claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a “‘tax protester’ type” argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty for failure to file a return.

Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468, 471 (1999) – the court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty and rejected his argument “that the tax system is voluntary so that he cannot be forced to comply” as “frivolous.”

The court-rules are pretty senseless if they cannot cite the law that explicitly describes the requirement to pay income-taxes. So what is it - what's it's wording?

[KoihimeNakamura]

The Supreme Court's ruling IS law. But in case you're interested, Oliver

"Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by plumjam

If you're American please watch this documentary. It's a real eye-opener. There is NO LAW.
You can even watch if you aren't american. I won't be checking up.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=0

Great! I'll stop paying my taxes!

What could possibly be the down side to that?

[Cain]

You could argue that it's an unjust law, but it's still a law. I'm currently reading _The Cheating Culture_ and the author claims that tax avoidance costs the "average" taxpayer 3000 more dollars in taxes. The author does not mention that vast disparity in income skews the average but it is noteworthy that cheating on your taxes harms all the suckers other honest, hardworking citizens.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I will say this as clearly and suscinctly as I can.

People - are - going - to - jail - over - this.

Got it?

I was curious about this at one time. I went to a meeting 10 years ago. The woman who conducted the meeting is now in jail.

Folks, please, I hate taxes, get the truth. Judges ARE sending people to jail. It's not a scare tactic. It's not the IRS pulling the wool over your eyes.

so if the government unlawfully decided that you had to, say, go to work naked every day, and not be paid.. you would do so, simply out of fear of them illegally throwing you in jail?

[RandFan]

Ok, it took a few minutes but I found it, please see title 26 of the U.S. Code which can be found online at http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2...sup_01_26.html

Also, if anyone is seriously considering this idiotic move please spend the $40 for Internal Revenue Code 1986 Contrary to popular belief, it IS law.

If you don't trust the IRS there are 3rd party sites debunking most tax protestor arguments. These are:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html... and http://www.quatloos.com/

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Tokorona

The Supreme Court's ruling IS law. But in case you're interested, Oliver

"Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So Amendment 16 enables that Income-Taxes are legal. What about a Law based on Amendment 16. Is there a federal law or is this a matter of state-laws?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oliver

The court-rules are pretty senseless if they cannot cite the law that explicitly describes the requirement to pay income-taxes. So what is it - what's it's wording?

Wow, just, wow. Oliver, you are breathtaking.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oliver

So Amendment 16 enables that Income-Taxes are legal. What about a Law based on Amendment 16. Is there a federal law or is this a matter of state-laws?

See above, also, see Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Tokorona

The Supreme Court's ruling IS law. But in case you're interested, Oliver

"Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

"without apportionment" does not include an income tax

[brodski]

Originally Posted by plumjam

so if the government unlawfully decided that you had to, say, go to work naked every day, and not be paid.. you would do so, simply out of fear of them illegally throwing you in jail?

If they use the proper legal channels, how can this be illegal? Unjust maybe, but not illegal. Please show where the Supreme Court failed when it ruled income tax legal? What theory of law are you using?

And if you could addrreess the UK traffic light question, it may help you to understand this issue.

[plumjam]

If you trouble yourself to watch the video you'll see that the HEAD of the IRS can't even state the law.. so anything anyone copies and pastes on here i'm going to treat with quite a pinch of salt

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by plumjam

so if the government unlawfully decided that you had to, say, go to work naked every day, and not be paid.. you would do so, simply out of fear of them illegally throwing you in jail?

?

"Unlawfully"? See Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. See the US Income Tax code. See the Supreme Court case law.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Cain

You could argue that it's an unjust law, but it's still a law. I'm currently reading _The Cheating Culture_ and the author claims that tax avoidance costs the "average" taxpayer 3000 more dollars in taxes. The author does not mention that vast disparity in income skews the average but it is noteworthy that cheating on your taxes harms all the suckers other honest, hardworking citizens.

if you watch the video you'll see that the entirety of income tax in the USA goes directly to pay interest to the Federal Reserve, which in reality is a cartel of private banks run by a small group of families - the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs.
So you're paying income tax ONLY to enrich the bankers. Not to help society in any way.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by plumjam

If you trouble yourself to watch the video you'll see that the HEAD of the IRS can't even state the law.. so anything anyone copies and pastes on here i'm going to treat with quite a pinch of salt

Hey, I can only post the law. If some bureaucrat who can't find his rear end with both hands doesn't know the law I wouldn't bet my freedom on it.

Please, plumjam, if you are an American citizen then follow your conscience. You asked me for the law. I posted links to the law.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Quote:

"without apportionment" does not include an income tax

No. No no no no no noo. It means that you cannot decide that say, Washington pays 20% and California 5%.

Moving on. What do you think pays for, at a guess, our infrastructure? Katrina refund? War in Iraq? Education subsudizes, federal loans...

As for the law..

Quote:

The Internal Revenue Code is today embodied as Title 26 of the United States Code (26 U.S.C.) and is a lineal descendant of the income tax act passed in 1913, following ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. While some states do not have an income tax (Nevada), all residents and all citizens of the United States are subject to the federal income tax.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax )

And Finally:

Quote:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The section RandFan suggested you look at.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by plumjam

if you watch the video you'll see that the entirety of income tax in the USA goes directly to pay interest to the Federal Reserve, which in reality is a cartel of private banks run by a small group of families - the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs.
So you're paying income tax ONLY to enrich the bankers. Not to help society in any way.

I can't get the video to play beyond 7:33 seconds but this is demonstrably untrue.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Tokorona

No. No no no no no noo. It means that you cannot decide that say, Washington pays 20% and California 5%.

Moving on. What do you think pays for, at a guess, our infrastructure? Katrina refund? War in Iraq? Education subsudizes, federal loans...

As for the law..

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax )

And Finally:


The section RandFan suggested you look at.

Reagan had a study done and it found that not a penny of the income tax goes to anything other than servicing the debt to the private bank which prints the money for nothing and then gives it to the government and charges interest on it.
We all need to go back to college to study banking.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Tokorona

No. No no no no no noo. It means that you cannot decide that say, Washington pays 20% and California 5%.

Moving on. What do you think pays for, at a guess, our infrastructure? Katrina refund? War in Iraq? Education subsudizes, federal loans...

As for the law..

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax )

And Finally:


The section RandFan suggested you look at.

infrastructure is paid for by corporate and state taxes, just as it was before 1913 and the advent of the income tax

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Reagan had a study done and it found that not a penny of the income tax goes to anything other than servicing the debt to the private bank which prints the money for nothing and then gives it to the government and charges interest on it.

Yes, and you believe everything you see on a youtube video.

No skepticism. No critical thinking. Some guy you don't know simply says something and you credulously believe it.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by plumjam

infrastructure is paid for by corporate and state taxes, just as it was before 1913 and the advent of the income tax

This sounds like a claim. When you started the thread you wanted the relevant case law. I found it for you.

Here is your turn, prove your contention? You will still have a big problem but prove your claim. We will cross that bridge when we get there, fair enough?

[brodski]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Reagan had a study done and it found that not a penny of the income tax goes to anything other than servicing the debt to the private bank which prints the money for nothing and then gives it to the government and charges interest on it.
We all need to go back to college to study banking.

Are you (or Raegen) claiming that US federal income tax is hypothecated taxation? Can you cite the law which states this?

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by RandFan

This sounds like a claim. When you started the thread you wanted the relevant case law. I found it for you.

Here is your turn, prove your contention? You will still have a big problem but prove your claim. We will cross that bridge when we get there, fair enough?

if you can't see that video, try this one, which explains how the whole fraudulent system has developed through history, and internationally

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=0
or read The Beast from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin

I don't see why you would out of hand reject a documentary, with the testimony of dozens of qualified experts, yet supply links to the IRS website, as though the IRS are going to be telling the truth on this, when they have so much at stake.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by brodski

Are you (or Raegen) claiming that US federal income tax is hypothecated taxation? Can you cite the law which states this?

now you're obviously trying to obfuscate the issue by using a word like "hypothecated"
This is a complete diversion, as the OP and the video are about the lack of an income tax law. Watch it for yourself.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by plumjam

if you can't see that video, try this one, which explains how the whole fraudulent system has developed through history, and internationally

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=0
or read The Beast from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin

I don't see why you would out of hand reject a documentary, with the testimony of dozens of qualified experts, yet supply links to the IRS website, as though the IRS are going to be telling the truth on this, when they have so much at stake.

• I'm a skeptic. I don't believe everything I see.
• I've cited the relevant statutes.
• I've cited case law.
• I've linked 3rd party neutral sites.
• The video IS conspiracy theory. There are thousands of them on the internet.
• I've demonstrated that the video is at least false in its claim that there is no law.

[RandFan]

Title 26 of the U.S. Code which can be found online at http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2...sup_01_26.html

Also, if anyone is seriously considering this idiotic move please spend the $40 for Internal Revenue Code 1986 Contrary to popular belief, it IS law.

If you don't trust the IRS there are 3rd party sites debunking most tax protestor arguments. These are:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html... and http://www.quatloos.com/

[RandFan]

I'm watching the video now. 24:31 It's wrong. These are old claims that have been thoroughly debunked.

There are answers to all of these. See:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html... and http://www.quatloos.com/

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by RandFan

• I'm a skeptic. I don't believe everything I see.
• I've cited the relevant statutes.
• I've cited case law.
• I've linked 3rd party neutral sites.
• The video IS conspiracy theory. There are thousands of them on the internet.
• I've demonstrated that the video is at least false in its claim that there is no law.

the Head of the IRS couldn't state a law, 3 ex IRS agents who left their jobs because they found out there was no law testify on the video, a woman who sat on a tax case jury tells how the jury asked the judge to present them with the law, and he couldn't. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul states there is no law, law professors state there is no law... etc etc.. how much more do you need?

it's not surprising given the recent attention that the IRS might circulate on the web something that LOOKS LIKE a law, but that would have no standing in a court of law.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm watching the video now. 24:31 It's wrong. These are old claims that have been thoroughly debunked.

There are answers to all of these. See:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html... and http://www.quatloos.com/

so far the weight of testimony is on my side.
just out of interest, do you believe in anything that isn't the establishment take on things?