TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hard Evidence That Form 1040 Has NO Legal Basis
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Expanding on the .pdf from the IRS:

quote:

E. Fictional Legal Bases 1. Contention: The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States. Some argue that the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States but rather a private corporation, because it was not created by positive law (i.e., an act of Congress) and that, therefore, the IRS does not have the authority to enforce the Internal Revenue Code. The Law: There is a host of constitutional and statutory authority establishing that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 534 (1971), A[w]e bear in mind that the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under ' 7801(a) of the 1954 Code for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws.@ Pursuant to section 7801, the Secretary of Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws and has the power to create an agency to enforce such laws. Based upon this legislative grant, the Internal Revenue Service was created. Thus, the Internal Revenue Service is a body established by Apositive law@ because it was created through a congressionally mandated power. Moreover, section 7803(a) explicitly provides that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall administer and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws. Relevant Case Law: Salman v. Dept. of Treasury, 899 F. Supp. 471 (D. Nev. 1995) B the court described Salman=s contention that the Internal Revenue Service is not a government agency of the United States as wholly frivolous and dismissed his claim with prejudice. Young v. I.R.S., 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind. 1984) B the court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, rejecting Young=s claim that the Internal Revenue Service is a private corporation, rather than a government agency.

Notice how it doesn't state the date or incorporation of the IRS. Or what actual law created this agency.

quote:

2. Contention: The AUnited States@ consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves. Some argue that the United States consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), and federal enclaves (e.g., American Indian reservations, military bases, etc.) and does not include the Asovereign@ states. According to this argument, if a taxpayer does not live within the AUnited States,@ as so defined, he is not subject to the federal tax laws. The Law: The Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal income tax upon all United States citizens and residents, not just those who reside in the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the Asixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves.@ This frivolous contention has been uniformly rejected by the courts. Relevant Case Law: In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 549-50 (9th Cir. 1989) B the court, observing that Becraft=s claim that federal laws apply only to United States territories and the District of Columbia Ahas no semblance of merit,@ and noting that this attorney had previously litigated cases in the federal appeals courts that had Ano reasonable possibility of success,@ imposed monetary damages and expressed the hope Athat this assessment will deter Becraft from asking this and other federal courts to expend more time and resources on patently frivolous legal positions.@ United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 (1988) B the court rejected as a Atwisted conclusion@ the contention Athat the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States,@ and affirmed a tax evasion conviction. Barcroft v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-5, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 1666, 1667, appeal dismissed, 134 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 1997) B noting that Barcroft=s statements Acontain protester-type contentions that have been rejected by the courts as groundless,@ the court sustained penalties for failure to file returns and failure to pay estimated income taxes.

Of course they are not going to show you the exact law in the Code.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Expanding on the .pdf from the IRS: Notice how it doesn't state the date or incorporation of the IRS. Or what actual law created this agency.

Umm, it says no law created it. What created it was the ability of the treassury department to mandate it as such. Therefore you should look for a treassury dept. memo or the like. Not that it really matters since the Treassury has the ability/right to collect income taxes....

quote:

Of course they are not going to show you the exact law in the Code.

Yea, I know sort of funny that they don't cite the laws but cite the cases which interpert the law. But I'd suggest looking into the cases further, afterall the conclusions and opinions of the judges will surely cite the relevant laws that based their decission. Afterall the courts make decissions not based on their whims, but on the laws. If the laws wouldn't have existed, they would not have interperted them as such and the prosecution would have just claim.

Unless of course you believe this is all some big government-wide conspriacy or such...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I haven't read this, but look at: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

If you haven't read it, then how can you comment on it? I have... therefore I can.

First off, this is not a legal document. The IRS could not submit this in a court and hold me to what it says. I'm simply a publication that states their opinion.

quote:

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

If you are liable for a tax, a return is NOT voluntary. They cite USC 26 Sec 6011a:

"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."

Sounds pretty clear to me that if you're liable for any tax imposed, then you are required to make a return.

quote:

2. Contention: Payment of tax is voluntary.

If you are liable for a tax, payment is not voluntary. More specifically, if you have "taxable income", then payment (and filing) is not voluntary.

quote:

3. Contention: The IRS must prepare federal tax returns for a person who fails to file.

I've never heard this argument before, so I don't know what to say about it. I don't know why anyone would try to use this argument.

I will get to the rest when I get home from work.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Umm, it says no law created it. What created it was the ability of the treassury department to mandate it as such. Therefore you should look for a treassury dept. memo or the like. Not that it really matters since the Treassury has the ability/right to collect income taxes....

Still no date just vagueness:

quote:

In the 1950s, the agency was reorganized to replace the patronage system with career, professional employees. Now, only the IRS Commissioner and Chief Counsel are selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Bureau of Internal Revenue name also was changed to the Internal Revenue Service to emphasize service to taxpayers.

Why no date? Here's something from a commercial entity known as the United States Postal Service:

quote:

The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971, when the Postmaster General ceased to be a member of the President�s cabinet.

quote:

Yea, I know sort of funny that they don't cite the laws but cite the cases which interpert the law. But I'd suggest looking into the cases further, afterall the conclusions and opinions of the judges will surely cite the relevant laws that based their decission. Afterall the courts make decissions not based on their whims, but on the laws. If the laws wouldn't have existed, they would not have interperted them as such and the prosecution would have just claim.

Judges don't practice law they make law.

quote:

Unless of course you believe this is all some big government-wide conspriacy or such...

The IRS has a budget of over $10 Billion dollars.

There is no conspiracy.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Still no date just vagueness:

It goes way back to the civil war (1862) and has been reorganized countless times since. The excat date is probably in a congressional law of the year, although once the law is based the agency is not miracilously formed but takes time...

sources:
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=98142,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._I...Revenue_Service

quote:

Why no date? Here's something from a commercial entity known as the United States Postal Service:

I'm sorry but the US postal service did in fact exist before 1971. I guess that means I do not have to pay for a stamp anymore to send my mail or some rubbish...

quote:

Judges don't practice law they make law.

Actually they do neither, they interpert law.
Lawmakers make law (congressmen). Lawyers practice it.

quote:

The IRS has a budget of over $10 Billion dollars.

Curious. Source?

quote:

There is no conspiracy.

At least we agree on one thing.

quote:

Originally posted by DJMaytag If you haven't read it, then how can you comment on it? I have... therefore I can.

I skimmed through it and read parts not all (contrary to popular belief I do have a life).

quote:

First off, this is not a legal document. The IRS could not submit this in a court and hold me to what it says. I'm simply a publication that states their opinion.

Never said that it was... However the document still address many concern and absurd claims by citing relevant case law.

Here is another bubble-burster for you guys:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#file

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus It goes way back to the civil war (1862) and has been reorganized countless times since. The excat date is probably in a congressional law of the year, although once the law is based the agency is not miracilously formed but takes time... sources: http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=98142,00.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._I...Revenue_Service

The name of it back then before Lincoln died of lead poisoning was the Department of Internal Revenue. The exact date of when it became the Internal Revenue Serrvice is unknown.

quote:

I'm sorry but the US postal service did in fact exist before 1971. I guess that means I do not have to pay for a stamp anymore to send my mail or some rubbish...

You're misinformed. It was originally called the United States Post Office before it was incorporated as the United States Postal Service. I should have explained that earlier.

quote:

Actually they do neither, they interpert law. Lawmakers make law (congressmen). Lawyers practice it.

Judges were once lawyers and still are lawyers.

quote:

"Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)" LAWYER. A counselor; one learned in the law. Vide attorney.

My original statement stands.

quote:

Curious. Source?

Either from the IRS or the GAO site.

quote:

At least we agree on one thing.

A conspiracy would denote something in secret. There is no secret when something is out in the open for everyone to see. People make it a conspiracy when they can't explain the obvious.

EDIT

Amendment:

IRS Total Net assets 2001: $ 25,244
IRS Total Net assets 2000: $ 26,599
Taken from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3385.pdf

If I can find the annual financials for the subsequent years I will post them.

Back after a brief PDD absence�

quote:

Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16. �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.�

That created the current IRS, no conspiracy to the date.

quote:

In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...48&page=426) (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealth - whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of treble damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions - are all within the definition of income, unless Congress makes a specific exemption (as it has for things like gifts, bequests, scholarships, and alimony).

Regarding the U.S. Code:

quote:

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).

What the courts have said in a number of recent decisions:

quote:

"The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required." Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990). "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. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999). "Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on 'income.' Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C. section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on 'income.' See generally United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153, 1996 WL 271468 *2-3 (4th Cir. May 22, 1996) (unpublished opinion)." United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5317, n. 3, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 9/25/2000). "Plaintiff's arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.] First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax "liability". The plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is "imposed". See 96 [sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between "imposing" a tax and creating a "liability" for tax. The Court fails to see a difference. Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal). See also, United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (Del. 1982). "As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

Also regarding Title 26:

quote:

The distinction between Title 26 of the United States Code and "positive law" is purely technical and would never be important to anyone unless the U.S. Government Printing Office made a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant law, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code. So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code as not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant.

(Source: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law)

This interpretation matches the Google encyclopedia�s mention of the U.S. Codes:

quote:

By law, the Code is "prima facie evidence" of the law in effect. However, the Statutes at Large remains the ultimate authority, and if a dispute arises as to the accuracy or completeness of the codification the courts will turn to the original language as enacted by Congress.

And to be sure, straight from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel:

quote:

Certain titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law, and pursuant to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the text of those titles is legal evidence of the law contained in those titles. The other titles of the Code are prima facie evidence of the laws contained in those titles. The following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49.

Source

Note 26 is not included and therefore only serves as prima facie evidence.



As far as William Wallace Lear, I checked out his case on PACER and he has some interesting filings. I�m hesitant to say that he did not go back to prison because he successfully proved the voluntary status of filing a 1040 and paying income taxes. A lot of the details in this case are unclear and the judge�s final order provides no insight. Other than the actual court documents, the only other internet information available on this specific case seems to come from tax protestor blogs and message boards/

And Ogvh, with all due respect. did it ever occur to you that people may think about subjects, weigh evidence and not come to the same conclusions as you do? It�s quite arrogant and insulting to suggest otherwise and you�ve hardly proven your opinion on a subject open to interpretation to be so factual that people who disagree with you put no thought into their side of the debate. The points posted above seem more convincing to me than a kid on TA constantly posting I�d easily have fallen for Nazi propaganda had I lived in 1930s Germany and don�t think, rather than disproving said points. Did my family who lived in Poland during WWII fall for the �big lie� as well?

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 The name of it back then before Lincoln died of lead poisoning was the Department of Internal Revenue. The exact date of when it became the Internal Revenue Serrvice is unknown.

It became known as the IRS in 1952-53 after it was reorganized under President Truman's Reorganization Plan Number 1, enacted by President Eisenhower in 1953. Source. The original institution was created by the Revenue Act of 1862 on July 1, 1862. Taxes went into effect on October 1, 1862. Source The 1894 income tax established based on this act was declared unconstitutional, but the Bureau of Internal Revenue was never declared unconstitutional.

The name change would not have anything to do with the institution being illegal anyway, it was still the same institution as created by Lincoln and had comissioners throughout the years, as other revenue was collected by the institution in years when the income tax was not collected, unless suddenly income taxes became illegal in the 1950s just because of the name change to the IRS. Truman's reorganization plan has not been declared unconstitutional though, so that is not the case.

The passage of the 16th Amendment allowed for the Constitutionality of the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act, which became law October 3, 1913, effective retroactively to March 1, 1913. Underwood was where the constitutional income tax came into implementation. Until 1918, March 1st was the filing deadline, which became the 15, which later became April 15th in 1954.Source

The first 1040, collected under the provisions of Underwood-Simmons.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Useless info on why I, wolverine want to be taxed...blah blah blah

You're largely confused.

Instead of cutting and pasting from whatever web sites you can find to support the governments claim (the internet is the child of DARPAnet, a US military project, so any data arguing FOR taxation is suspect), read the Code. Find information from many people who have volumes to tell you about the Code. There are people out there that can help you beyond this forum. I found that info on my own.

If you insist that you like being robbed then by all means continue being robbed. But when the tax rate goes to something like 75% then don't complain.

The choice is up to you.

The more you read and learn, the less your adversary will know
Sun Tzu

Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave
Frederick Douglass

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 You're largely confused. Instead of cutting and pasting from whatever web sites you can find to support the governments claim (the internet is the child of DARPAnet, a US military project, so any data arguing FOR taxation is suspect), read the Code.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 You're largely confused. Instead of cutting and pasting from whatever web sites you can find to support the governments claim (the internet is the child of DARPAnet, a US military project, so any data arguing FOR taxation is suspect), read the Code. Find information from many people who have volumes to tell you about the Code. There are people out there that can help you beyond this forum. I found that info on my own. If you insist that you like being robbed then by all means continue being robbed. But when the tax rate goes to something like 75% then don't complain. The choice is up to you. The more you read and learn, the less your adversary will know Sun Tzu Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave Frederick Douglass

Oh come on, taking the easy way out? Hmm, it seemed before you didn't like that I didn't post enough sources for you and you didn't even like when I cited a book with no online text available, but now anything online is wrong?

Considering that you posted this:

quote:

The name of it back then before Lincoln died of lead poisoning was the Department of Internal Revenue. The exact date of when it became the Internal Revenue Serrvice is unknown.

and Yoepus and I both pointed out that it is known, with a date and a reason for the change, I think you're the misguided one posting false information. As a matter of fact here is the transcript of the document . If you don't like the internet, look it up: Reorganization Plan of 1952, dated January 14, 1952 ( EFFECTIVE MAR. 14, 1952, 17 F.R. 2243, 66 STAT. 823, AS AMENDED
JUNE 28, 1955, CH. 189, SEC. 12(C)(19), 69 STAT. 182; SEPT. 13,
1982, PUB. L. 97-258, SEC. 5(B), 96 STAT. 1068, 1085
Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the
House of Representatives in Congress assembled, January 14, 1952,
pursuant to the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949,
approved June 20, 1949 (see 5 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).


"Follow the code, follow the code!" Did you notice my sources showing that the code, particularly title 26, does not supercede the actual laws on such issues? One came from the official code release itself (the only government source you seem to assert is valid and trustworthy) and Lord knows the 16th Amendment is a made-up internet item posted online by the government to fool everyone. I'm quite familiar with paytriots and I don't think I'm going to take your word or theirs at wealth4freedom at face value. I even looked at Lear's court motions before coming to a decision. If one truly thinks, they scrutinize both sides carefully, not just the widely accepted view. Show me where in your unorthodox sources Underwood-Simmons was invalidated because of the existence of the U.S. Codes?

Look up any of the dates and acts or court cases I posted from any source you want and you'll find out they're very real.

As for how much people should be taxed, I thought the questions here were whether federal income taxes are voluntary and/or constitutional. My answers are no and yes respectively, based on a lot more material than you've brought to the table. If you want to debate how much people should be taxed, let's do it, but don't run away from the debate as soon as someone posts something that contradicts what you say. [/Rant]

Are you a taxpayer?

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Are you a taxpayer?

Of course.

quote:

26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)14: Taxpayer The term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. 26 U.S.C. �1313: Definitions (b) Taxpayer Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.

Continue filing.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Continue filing.

Umm. I think he will.

My point is that he doesn't bother to read.

So he should continue to file since he just assessed himself and is subjected to the IRC.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 My point is that he doesn't bother to read. So he should continue to file since he just assessed himself and is subjected to the IRC.

I already posted that 26 hasn't been established as positive law. You just posted the answer yourself, any person subject to applicable revenue law. The code is not the end all as to what that is, otherwise please show the contradictory evidence that disproves what the U.S. code printings themselves say that 26 has not been enacted as positive law. Otherwise see Treas. Reg. � 1.1-1(a)(1) or the acts I mentioned, unless we're going to get into the whole "I'm really a foreign sovereign and not a U.S. citizen" debate, since who has to pay income taxes is clearly defined.

Since you're a taxpayer then continue to pay your taxes.

I'll keep repeating this until someone, somewhere on this green and blue planet, figures out what I am saying.

There's 6 billion of you. Someone's got to have some sort of brain in their skull.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Since you're a taxpayer then continue to pay your taxes. I'll keep repeating this until someone, somewhere on this green and blue planet, figures out what I am saying. There's 6 billion of you. Someone's got to have some sort of brain in their skull.

So let's make this clear, you are a U.S. citizen, earn substantial wages and haven't filed a federal tax return or paid any income taxes for exactly how many years?

Rather than repeating over and over that you're right, maybe you might be more convincing if you tried explaining how you're right and refuting points that contradict your statements. "The internet started as a military project" hardly disproves anything I said.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 So let's make this clear, you are a U.S. citizen, earn substantial wages and haven't filed a federal tax return or paid any income taxes for exactly how many years?

What I do or have done is irrelevant since that would open up a whole line of questioning into my personal affairs of which I decline to comment.

quote:

Rather than repeating over and over that you're right, maybe you might be more convincing if you tried explaining how you're right and refuting points that contradict your statements. "The internet started as a military project" hardly disproves anything I said.

Don't make assumptions into my being right. I do not pretend to be right just informed.

The military project statement was about looking around for info and just relying on it's varnish as fact. Just read the code and whatever caselaw you can find. If you happen to come across anything for or against then share it. If you go to schiffs site or others related then good but be careful what they say. Read their arguments. there are quite a few people around that have lots of information. You'd have to read it before you can comment. Being that there is false info from both the gov't and others, you'd have to dessimate it yourself. You'd be able to see what makes sense and what doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Don't make assumptions into my being right. I do not pretend to be right just informed. The military project statement was about looking around for info and just relying on it's varnish as fact. Just read the code and whatever caselaw you can find. If you happen to come across anything for or against then share it. If you go to schiffs site or others related then good but be careful what they say. Read their arguments. there are quite a few people around that have lots of information. You'd have to read it before you can comment. Being that there is false info from both the gov't and others, you'd have to dessimate it yourself. You'd be able to see what makes sense and what doesn't.

There are many numerous websties, books and court cases arguing all various reasons why income taxes are either voluntary or illegal. I've done some reading and just as you state there are flaws in government sources, I have seen countless flaws in all the cases against income taxes I've read. If you believe in a particular argument against them or you don't pay income taxes, that's great, I'd love to hear what you have to say. I disagree with at least half the people in the forum on any given topic and I'll readily admit that I consider the points of others and will certainly consider yours, but I've also done a tremendous amount of research on similar topics, such as fractional banking and mortgage elimination theories and the largest group advocating such services just got busted after using many standard bank and tax fraud theories. I think my points that the IRS did have a clear starting point, that there are many court cases on record showing strong court opinions in favor of such taxation and that there are other items to consider beyond the U.S. codes are valid points to make in a discussion about the subject.

One common bond is the W4 from what I can tell. Eliminate that and then you'd have progress.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/

quote:

Former IRS CID Special Agent Joseph Banister Acquitted of Tax Fraud And Conspiracy Government Unable To Prove U.S. Law Requires Income Tax Withholding or Filing Sacramento California -- On Thursday June 23, a federal jury found former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Special Agent and CPA Joseph Banister not guilty of all counts alleging criminal tax fraud and conspiracy related to actions he took on behalf of a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over several years by stopping withholding of all income and employment taxes from the paychecks of his workers. During the trial the Department of Justice was unable to put forth any evidence that Banister had either engaged in a conspiracy or had acted unlawfully when he shared legal research with business owner Al Thompson concluding that he had no legal obligation to withhold taxes from his workers or when he (Banister) prepared corrected tax returns for Thompson claiming his taxable income was, under U.S. law, zero. During the trial, Banister's former supervisor at IRS�s San Jose CID office, Robert Gorini (who testified via video recording) when pointedly asked, was unable to cite any U.S. law that required Banister to pay income taxes. Banister, who was forced to resign in 1999 after questioning IRS officials about their legal authority, gave Thompson�s worker�s a presentation in 2000 which reviewed his detailed investigative research of U.S. tax law which concluded that not only did the IRS lack any authority to impose income taxes on the workers, but there was no legal requirement for the business to withhold any taxes from the worker's paychecks. Banister is part of a nationwide effort seeking to force the U.S. Government to respond to a series of detailed legal Petitions for Redress of Grievances directly challenging the authority of the IRS. Last summer, the We The People Foundation initiated a landmark lawsuit with 2000 plaintiffs against the government because it has refused to answer the Petitions. The Right-To-Petition lawsuit, of which Banister is a plaintiff, is the first time in history that U.S. courts have been asked to define the meaning of the final ten words of the First Amendment. Court documents for the RTP lawsuit and scholarly research regarding the Right to Petition can be downloaded from the Lawsuit Information Center on www.GiveMeLiberty.org. Following the verdict, Banister was greeted by a throng of WTP supporters and members of his family. Tomorrow, WTP will publish additional details of this important news and stream video of post-verdict interviews of Banister & several of the jurors.

About six to ten months ago WTP did a news conference that I caught on CNN. Once the URL was posted during the conference did their servers get overloaded.

I wonder why?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.