 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ogvh5150
Formula 1 Addict
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: F1 2008 Red Bull Racing/BMW Sauber
|
|
|
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.
___________________
|
|
 Jun-08-2005 03:37 
|
|
|
|
|
DJMaytag
Supreme Pizzaaddict
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: back in Madison, WI... again!
|
|
|
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.
___________________
DJMaytag @ Facebook
Tracks on Soundcloud
Paul Van Dyk - Today [DJMaytag's Dreamy Dub Mix]
|
|
Jun-08-2005 11:21 
|
|
|
|
|
ogvh5150
Formula 1 Addict
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: F1 2008 Red Bull Racing/BMW Sauber
|
|
|
| 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.
___________________
|
|
|
Jun-08-2005 23:31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yoepus
Neo-condimist
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Ketchup fields, Texas
|
|
|
Jun-09-2005 00:51 
|
|
|
|
|
wolverine16
Pilgrim Pete
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, USA
|
|
|
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?
___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here
Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA
Last edited by wolverine16 on Jun-09-2005 at 22:11
|
|
|
Jun-09-2005 18:55
|
|
|
|
|
wolverine16
Pilgrim Pete
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, USA
|
|
|
| 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.
___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here
Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA
Last edited by wolverine16 on Jun-09-2005 at 22:18
|
|
|
Jun-09-2005 20:52
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:07.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
