The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 29, 2008, 11:28 PM   #1
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Income Tax

Recently in one of the posts on another thread, Value of the Dollar TFL member homefires posted a link to the film Freedom to Fascism and in that film its director and producer the late Aaron Russo asserted that there is no law that requires us to pay income tax and if there is the government will not produce it.

I had watched this film before, but did not fully investigate it's claims.

Since re-watching it and it is by the way a very good film, I have searched the web and the tax law myself and cannot find the specific law which requires us to pay income tax.

Now the fact that I and others cannot locate it does not mean it does not exist.

Perhaps some of the lawyers and legal experts among us can lead us to where specifically and explicitly the law states that we are required to pay income tax.

I sincerely would like to get to the bottom of this and find a definitive answer, one way or another.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 12:09 AM   #2
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
I'll tell you what, Nate. Why don't you stop paying your income tax and call the IRS and let them know. I bet that when they prosecute you, they'll cite a law or two.

I'm not going to go browsing the Tax Code because (1) I've always hated tax law and found the Internal Revenue Code mind numbingly dull reading; and (2) this is my profession and not my hobby so I only bother when I'm well paid for doing it. But I do know that over the years a bunch of people have been prosecuted for not filing their income tax returns, or for lying on them; and a bunch of those folks have gone to jail as a result. They also generally had lawyers defending them. So if it were as simple as "there's no law requiring paying income tax" I would think that at least one of those defense lawyers would have been able to successfully argue that.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 12:40 AM   #3
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
I bet that when they prosecute you, they'll cite a law or two
Before watching the film I would have agreed with you 100% and thought the whole notion was ludicrous. Yet in the film a man is acquitted precisely because the prosecution could not produce the law. There were also several former IRS agents in it who resigned because they could not find the law. The current IRS Commissioner will not produce the law and a former commissioner who is an attorney could not produce it either.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 01:00 AM   #4
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Then not to put too fine a point on it, I don't believe the film. there have been a lot of successful tax evasion prosecutions over the years. Personally, I'm not going to waste any more time on the question.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 02:49 AM   #5
Darren007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,053
I've heard that same nutty "income tax is illegal" conspiracy BS as well.

Want laws??? Here you go.....

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg.../JustNoLaw.htm

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg...taxes/code.htm
Darren007 is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 04:29 AM   #6
Danzig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2005
Location: Fort Carson, Colorado
Posts: 896
Surely if there was a law requiring the payment of income tax..somebody would have shown it for that $50,000 that We The People were offering?!?!?!?

As the law hasn't been shown, even to the satisfaction of IRS employees, I must conclude that the law does not exist.

For $50,000, greed alone would have led SOMEBODY to show us the law if there was one.
__________________
Fide et Fortitudine - My family motto
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson
Danzig is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 04:47 AM   #7
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,857
I have to do tax homework tomorrow anyway, if this thread is still open I'll cite some code for y'all. The tax code tells you how to calculate it and all the fun rules, but the answer to the "who sez?" question is the 16th Amendment:

Amendment XVI

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.
B. Lahey is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 05:12 AM   #8
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,857
Here's an entertaining discussion of a related argument:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html

I hope the mods will let this one go for a minute. It may be a bunch of half-baked conspiracy nonsense, but at least it's interesting. Tax is usually dull as a bucket of bricks unless it's your money on the line.
B. Lahey is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 08:29 AM   #9
LightningJoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: DFW Metroplex (well, McKinney)
Posts: 858
Well, if you work for a wage or salary, it doesn't really matter because they take your money before you see it and you have to send in a 1040 to get some back. If you do your W4 wrong to reduce your deductions, they'll get you for perjury. They've got the guns and the badges. If you thought you were living in a free country with an effective Constitution, you must have stopped paying attention around 1860.
LightningJoe is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 09:20 AM   #10
homefires
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2007
Location: Deming New Mexico
Posts: 1,495
Just a note: I'm not into the Conspiracy thing. I was just pointing out a observation. I'm having issues with the IRS right now. Last week I received a letter from them stating I owe them $1000.00 from my tax filing for 2006! I forgot to submit a 1099. Oops! They just now found it?
homefires is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 09:38 AM   #11
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
homefires

Its well worth employing the services of a CPA to do your taxes.

I've never been audited or had one of my returns questioned and their fee is tax deductible.

If you want the maximum deductions allowed and minimal scrutiny do not rely on yourself or the large tax preparation firms(i.e. H&R Block, Jackson-Hewitt, etc) get a CPA.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 09:48 AM   #12
HKuser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 625
It's nonsense. The cites by Darren007 hit it on the head. I can't believe that anyone still promulgates this fallacy. By the way, if you have kids, make sure you've taken the applicable child credits.
HKuser is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 10:14 AM   #13
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
I studied income tax law and the codes and regulations in the early 90's and while I cannot cite anything other than the 16th Amendment, I can tell you that failing to pay your income taxes and most especially by claiming the government does not have the authority to levy them, will very, very likely get you prosecuted and jailed. Go ahead and try not paying, but don't be surprised when you find yourself having Rocko trade you to Bubba for a pack of Camels.
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 10:30 AM   #14
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
but the answer to the "who sez?" question is the 16th Amendment:

Amendment XVI

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 seems fairly straight forward and after having read the links sited in other posts I was prepared to concede that the taxing of personal income was within the law and constitutional provisions. However after having read the following I will reserve my judgment yet again.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states: "Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers," and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 states: "No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in apportionment to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

These basic sections of the Constitution have never been repealed or amended. The Constitution still forbids the direct taxation of individuals, their property, and their rights, unless the tax is apportioned to the State governments for collection.

And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 states: "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marquee and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

This Clause in the Constitution is why NEITHER the Federal, nor the State governments have any authority, either OVER, or TO UNILATERALLY ALTER, PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS.

Well, you say the 16th Amendment as cited by B.Lahey above changed everything right?

Not according to the SCOTUS, they ruled in Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co. and in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co., that since the provisions of Article I, requiring that direct taxes be apportioned, were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect. And, that since the language of the 16th Amendment specifies that the income tax is to be a tax without apportionment, then it cannot be a direct tax, because otherwise the Constitution would inherently contradict itself, which cannot be allowed to happen. Article I cannot prohibit direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment grants the power to lay direct taxes without apportionment, because then the Constitution would inherently contradict itself and could no longer serve as a valid foundation for our Law. So, to specifically prevent the Constitution from contradicting itself, the Supreme Court ruled that since the 16th Amendment provides for an income tax without apportionment, then the income tax cannot be a direct tax.

There are only two major classes of taxation authorized in the Constitution; direct taxes and indirect taxes. So, if the income tax cannot be a direct tax, then it must be an indirect tax. Indirect taxes are classified into three minor categories in the Constitution: imposts, duties and excises. The income tax started in 1861 as an Income Duty and a Federal employee "kickback," imposed only on foreign imports and Federal employees, which was contained and allowed within the Constitutional category of duties. As a duty it was only imposed on the flow of foreign goods into America, NOT DOMESTIC GOODS, NOR DOMESTIC INCOME.

Obviously today, the income tax is not currently being enforced as a duty, so the questions are: "Did the 16th Amendment create a new congressional power to tax directly ?", and; "How did the 16th Amendment change the income tax ?". The answer to the first question was supplied by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 112 (1916), stating:"...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.."

The Supreme Court clearly states that the 16th Amendment DID NOT create a new power to tax the People in a direct fashion without apportionment, AS IS FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED BY THE IRS.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 10:42 AM   #15
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
The Court ruled that the 16th Amendment effectively transformed the income tax from an indirect duty to an indirect excise. It is not a direct tax without apportionment. And, if we examine the law closely, that is exactly what we find; that the income tax is imposed and applied under the law, as an indirect excise, ONLY imposed on specific entities (Federal), and sources of "taxable income" (privileged).

So, what is an excise tax ? Fortunately, the Supreme Court used to know what it was doing, and both of these decisions, Brushaber and Stanton, refer you to another case handed down five years earlier, Flint vs Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911), in which the Supreme Court ruled that excise taxes are:"...taxes laid on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable...it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."

Wow, no wonder the IRS Commissioner or the justice department will not address this issue, personal income tax really is unconstitutional and counter to precedent!
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 10:51 AM   #16
sasquatch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2005
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,347
personal income tax really is unconstitutional and counter to precedent!

I guess it all depends on how important principle is to you.

I had a neighbor who got hooked up with one of those "income taxes are illegal" groups. He lost his house, and last I heard he was living in a rented mobile home.

However, he still maintains that he is right, and shouldn't have to pay income taxes. On principle he may be right, however my experiences with the IRS have shown me that they seldom, if ever, lose a battle.
__________________
Just my 2¢.
sasquatch is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 11:00 AM   #17
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
"income taxes are illegal" groups
I am the member of no such group and I dutifully pay my taxes, furthermore I am not suggesting or hinting that others should not pay their taxes.

I was unfamiliar with the issue and went into it with an open mind. It now appears that those opposed have some solid legal ground on which to stand and not just 'loony' theory.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 11:30 AM   #18
HKuser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 625
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_pro...onal_arguments

Quote:
Some protesters have argued that because the Sixteenth Amendment does not contain the words "repeal" or "repealed", the Amendment is ineffective to change the law.[37] According to legal commentator Daniel B. Evans:

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that an amendment must specifically repeal another provision of the Constitution. In fact, there are 27 amendments to the Constitution, and only one of them specifically repeals an earlier provision. (The 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition, specifically repeals the 18th Amendment, which started Prohibition.)

If this argument were correct, then the losing presidential candidate would be the vice-president of the United States, because the 12th Amendment did not expressly repeal Article II, Section 1, clause 3 of the Constitution. And Senators would still be selected by state legislatures, because the 17th Amendment did not expressly repeal any part of Article I, section 3, of the Constitution.[38]
—Daniel B. Evans

In Buchbinder v. Commissioner, the taxpayers cited the case of Eisner v. Macomber and argued that "the Sixteenth Amendment must be interpreted so as not to 'repeal or modify' the original Articles of the Constitution."[39] The United States Tax Court rejected that and all other arguments by Bruce and Elaine Buchbinder (the taxpayer-petitioners), stating: "We will not dress petitioners' frivolous tax-protester ramblings with a cloak of respectability [ . . . . ] We find that petitioners in this case have pursued a frivolous cause of action. We find that they are liable for a penalty in the amount of $250.00 under the provisions of [Internal Revenue Code] section 6673."[40] The actual statement by the United States Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber is that the Sixteenth Amendment "shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal [ . . .] In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment [ . . . ] it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income' [ . . . ]".[41]
HKuser is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 11:46 AM   #19
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
Click here to see why your ridiculous claims do not hold water.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 02:27 PM   #20
toybox99615
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2007
Location: Kodiak Alaska
Posts: 767
most of the great anti-IRS type programs are

total BS. Some even go so far as having you put all your wealth in thier trust. Then they will take care of it for you. I've seen dozens of these scams over the years. I use to have a fairly good accounting and tax prep business that just got tired of the BS from clients. Everyone knows all about income taxes until they pay one of those IRS penalties and interest notices for their creative approach to avoiding the taxes.

Truthfully while I've read a number of instances where some scheeme was suppose to make you immune for the taxes I've only seen one case where it worked. The guy died with no family and virtual had spend every dime he had before the IRS caught up with him.


Anyone who is seriously thinking about making the plunge into one of the schemes needs to do a lot of research and evaluating the claims before they put themselves at risk. But hey maybe poverty is a good thing to strive for.
toybox99615 is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 03:25 PM   #21
Brad Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2002
Location: Lubbock, TX
Posts: 119
Two words...

Irwin Schiff

Brad
__________________
Exhilaro Meus Diem - Clintus Eastwoodicus
Brad Johnson is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 07:02 PM   #22
Alleykat
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
Irwin Schiff, the granddaddy of the "we don't really have to pay income taxes" movement served time in federal prison. This is the same kind of silliness that you see with the "Freemen" movement, etc., etc.
Alleykat is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 07:31 PM   #23
kamerer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2007
Location: Way west
Posts: 481
I was just wondering what kinds of films Wesley Snipes was going to be making over the next three years - oops, looks like he won't be.

Income tax not legal? The courts and lawyers sure seem to think so.
kamerer is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 08:33 PM   #24
Darren007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Irwin Schiff, the granddaddy of the "we don't really have to pay income taxes" movement served time in federal prison. This is the same kind of silliness that you see with the "Freemen" movement, etc., etc.

Exactly!!!!

We had some of these "Freemen" dorks here in Colorado. They refused to get license plates for their cars and instead put these paper tags on that said "Freemen blah, blah, blah...".....It made the news because they were issued tickets and when they refused to pay the fine, they were arrested.


I watched Aaron Russos video, and what I cant seem to understand, they claim no law exists, yet I found the links I posted earlier in less than 5 secs on google, that clearly show the law and where to find it!!!

His "movie" reminds me of the other "America sucks" conspiracy vids I've seen....

:barf:"TerrorStorm" by Alex Jones= Alarmist, naive and just plain stupid,... and the video is even worse...He thinks 9/11 and the London Bus Bombings were done by the U.S. and British governments. He also claims that North Vietnam never fired a shot at the ships in the Gulf of Tonkin that started the Vietnam War. He also claims that Israeli Fighter Jets, flying with Egyption markings and under orders from the CIA, attacked a U.S. Naval radio vessel so they could go to war with Egypt. If you believe the gov is trying to control you and make you a slave this is your video!!!:barf:

:barf:"Loose Change" by a couple of college idiots= This video has been so thoroughly debunked its not even funny. And yet it keeps getting press, and I still have people asking me..."Did you see Loose Change???...I think the gov did it!!!"...As if the editors of Popular Mechanics didnt put these idiots in their place enough heres another link that debunks every crackpot claim these guys made in the video.....:barf:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

Loosechange is so dumb, its what I now call "college dumb" (thanks Penn&Teller!!!)...CollegeDumb= Something sooo incredibly stupid only a college graduate could have thought or said it.
Darren007 is offline  
Old June 30, 2008, 08:48 PM   #25
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
North Vietnam never fired a shot at the ships in the Gulf of Tonkin that started the Vietnam War
I'm not that familiar with Alex Jones or his conclusions, however as regards the the Gulf of Tonkin incident goes it only took a (as you say) few seconds to find this.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident prompted the first large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Vietnam. It was a pair of attacks perpetrated by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (the Communist government of North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The incident occurred on August 2 and 4, 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.[1]
The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating American involvement in the Vietnam War, which lasted until 1975.
In 2005, it was revealed in an official NSA declassified report[2] that the USS Maddox first fired warning shots on the August 2 incident and that there may not have been North Vietnamese boats at the August 4 incident. The report said
[I]t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August.[3]
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07447 seconds with 7 queries