No Income Tax Law (you don't have to pay)

The necessity for individuals to anti up is within the tax code, which is a volume I don't wish to take the time to digest. But one which must have teeth or even the rich wouldn't be paying a portion of what they do.

 

Perhaps you tax protesters would like to file a request for judgement with today's Supreme Court and settle it once and for all. In the meantime, I would recommend that if you don't have a lot of savings or free attorneys you pay your taxes.

 

"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply...".

-Dwight E. Avis, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, testifying before a House Ways and Means subcommittee in 1953

"... the key question is: can we define 'income' in a fair and reasonably straightforward manner? Unfortunately we have not yet succeeded in doing so".

-Shirley Peterson, former IRS Commissioner, April 1993

"If no information or return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you".

- Gary Makovski, Special IRS Agent, testifying under oath in US. v. Lloyd

"Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance".

-Mortimer Caplin, Internal Revenue Audit Manual (1975)

"Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to IRS agents... Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights".

-Judge Cummings, U.S. Federal Judge, in US. v. Dickerson (7th Circuit 1969)

"Fear is the key element for the IRS in achieving its mission. Without fear, the IRS would have a difficult time maintaining our so-called system of voluntary compliance ...". "Given the opportunity, the IRS will take the easy way out and grab whatever it can... the IRS does not really care about you and what your future....... may be".

-Santo Presti, former IRS Criminal Investigation Agent and author of "IRS In Action

 

That's great then the changes Cheney made to Ebay won't effect the free economy if they choose to not file? No one that chooses not to file under your premise will be under scrutiny....that's great. Can you really promise that sort of security from prosecution?

 

I don't think anyone is saying that it's a good idea to NOT file...........no delusions of grandeur here, while I realize that the practice of the citizen paying a Federal Income Tax is most certainly criminal in nature, carried out through practices of raw intimidation....I also believe we all realize that the lower courts tend to do their best to seriously fuck over tax dissenters.

 

I made it clear in my second post that I don't recommend not paying the income tax. However, many people haven't and were taken to court and have won because there is no law mandating it.

At the same time, even people who pay their taxes have been harassed by the IRS, which is a truly criminal and unconstitutional organization that abuses its power on a regular basis.

 

Please provide one documented case of a person who won a case and didn't have to pay income tax.

 

Banister vs IRS

Conklin vs IRS

The United States of America vs Karl Loren aka Loren C. Troescher

 

OK, so we are dealing with the standard conspiracy theory cases which you probably understand about as well as you understand the "private" federal reserve, for which the evidence is so overwhelming that you can't provide a single thing to back it up.

To summarise, this is the standard bait and switch. If a tax protester is acquitted of anything, that proves the federal income tax (FIT) is unconstitutional, even if the case and the decision have nothing at all to do with the constitutionality of the FIT. Typically the "wins" will be minor procedural issues or technicalities. As usual, Rat keeps the information to a minimum so we have to guess what he means and what he wants debunked.

Joe Banister is so convinced that the FIT is unconstitutional that he files and pays taxes every year. The case he "won" was actually a case against a client he advised. His client was convicted on two counts of filing false claims for refunds, filing a false amended individual income tax return, ten counts of willfully failing to deduct, withhold, collect and pay over income and social security taxes from his employees. He was sentenced to serve 72 months in prison and was fined $7,500. Obviously these convictions are not compatible with an "illegal" income tax. Diligent FIT payer Joe was not found guilty of conspiracy to defraud, which tax protesters knowingly misrepresent as proving FIT is unconstitutional. Joe is listed by www.quatloos.com, an anti-financial fraud website, in its hall of shame.

Joe Conklin has also earned a place on the quantloos hall of shame, and is considered a fraudster and con artist by many other tax advice websites. He has never won a case on the constitutionality of FIT and his "5th amendement" defense has been repeatedly rejected. He is often in court with the IRS and although he has lost many cases, has won some minor decisions unrelated to the constitutionality of FIT.

[size=-1] Loren C. Troescher is a scientologist who's "victory" invalidates the 5th amendment argument. The court decided that since failing to file taxes is a crime, the IRS could not compel him to provide documents when they investigated him for failing to file. There was no decision that FIT is unconstitutional.

==

So, no surprises. The tax protester world is full of fraudsters who want to take your money while you go to jail. Rat has provided links to a few of them, NONE OF WHOM HAVE GOT OUT OF PAYING INCOME TAX.

Rat will now move on to ad homenim attacks followed by abandoning the argument, just as he did for the "private" federal reserve.
[/size]

 

So when are you going to show the law that says paying the Federal Income Tax is mandatory? Or are you just going to keep attacking people and spreading lies?

 

First, I'd like to know why you lied and said these three people won court cases and didn't have to pay taxes when this isn't true.

Then I'd like to know what lies i am spreading, since everything I said about these people is true, in fact you couldn't even be bothered to dispute any of it.

 

Pointbreak............show the law, either show UNQUESTIONABLE PROOF that the FIT is mandatory, and apt under the constitution...........or quit typing. I have yet to see you offer any conclusive proof of any of your crackpot establishment sympathizing theories (including the Federal Reserve not being privately controlled), the only thing you know how to do is muddy the waters, selectively fact check to meet your own agenda, and battle semantics. Maybe Matt's right........maybe you are COINTELPRO........however I think he's way off base on that, in my opinion your just another blowhard sheep unwilling to give creedence to anything that doesen't come out of a government dossier.

 

Show some substantial proof. Site your sources, real court transcripts, not quatloos.com and its cartoon llama spokesman.

 

You're going to have to object to something specific, rather than just objecting to everything I say. I don't have time for that. Go ahead and show one claim I made that is incorrect. I have already explained in detail why Rats claims are lies, that's why he changed the argument.

Also, your claim that I couldn't back up the Federal Reserve story is a joke. You couldn't back up your own theory, in fact your own sources contradicted you, as I pointed out. You rejected every single source I put forward, including the actual text of the US code governing the Federal Reserve System. Of all the ridiculous denial I have seen at HipForums, that was one of the most hilarious examples of all. So not only was I able to prove you wrong using YOUR SOURCES, you were never able to prove a single thing I said was wrong. How you count this a victory is beyond me. The thread is still there if you ever get the courage to come back to it.

 

The federal Constitution only recognizes two categories of taxation. One is a direct tax and the other is an indirect tax. [See the US Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 2; Article I, Section 9, Clause 4; Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.]

Virtually every tax in this country is an indirect tax, not a direct tax. If you cannot avoid a tax without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life, the tax is not indirect, but is direct. Many people will argue that the 16th amendment gives Federal Income Tax powers to the government, however taxes under the 16th Amendment only deal with corporate dividends and other forms of distribution of corporate profit derived from capitol investment.

So, considering that nowhere in the constitution does it state that direct taxes can be levied upon the people, that brings us back to indirect taxes. Their are three forms of indirect taxes, imposts, duties, and excises (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). In general, the terms impost and duties apply to articles moving in commerce. Since your earnings likely do not fall into that category, we must then turn to the final form of indirect tax - the excise tax.

In other words, if you are to be subject to an excise tax, you must first avail yourself of some privileged status or activity.

Another simple definition of priviledge is any activity that is outside of or beyond ones unalienable rights.

These definitions and citations clearly illustrate the distinction between priviledge and unalienable right (least far as taxes are concerned). Since taxes upon any (non-16th Amendment) income are excise taxes, you should ask yourself this question: "What privileged activity have I been involved in?" If your answer is "none", and you're getting pissed off, you're beginning to see things clearly.


Although the average American doesn't know it, they repeatedly declare themselves liable for state and federal income tax. This is a classic example of "what you don't know will hurt you!Whenever a person who is in control of paying you money asks for an "identifying number" (e.g. SSN, TIN, EIN, ITIN; see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(a) for definitions) what that person is really doing is asking you to declare that the money he is about to pay you is subject to federal and state taxing jurisdiction. Because there is no law that allows a third party to determine your tax status, the person who will be paying you is asking a reasonable question (especially if they are a taxpayer). Of course the problem is that the practical application of the process has been perverted into a "demand" as opposed to a "request". This is particularly odd in light of the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury, in his own tax regulations, states that the requester may only request the number. To put it very simply, when you obtain a job, you fill out tax paperwork. By filling out these forms, you are voluntarily complying to pay the FIT. Since their is no law requiring an american to pay the FIT, and it is subject to voluntary compliance, the only way to continually collect this tax from ordinary citizens is relying on their sheer ignorance of the law, along with alot of disinformation. Though the Supreme Court has yet to hand down a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the FIT, juries in lower courts continually convict people for Tax Evasion, without ever seeing a law. Just because everyone seems to believe something as fact, does not make it so.

SOURCE: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/fedincometax
.php.

​

 

ha ha ha, hey this is that channel with the chimps tea party again, or is that "chumps tea party"? anyway, just thought I'd let you know this is the funniest comedy thread ever, and is almost identical to one posted last year in september or november.

Carry on chaps, this is a right laugh I love it - hang on let me just go and get some more beer and cheese dips

I love it when the OP is so wrong and then a few cops come in and they bust him

reply by dudenamedrob: er um ha errrrrr hum yeah ah uh, hmmmm - oh ! uh oh erm no !

 

So I take it your too full of your own sense of infallibility to read my last post??

 

I'm just here lappin up the action and getting stuck into my beer and cheese dips, btw dudenamedrob, can i suggest that you actually put links to government websites in your posts that way we will know when to laugh and when its a serious bit !

 

Typical. When I ask you to object to something specific about my post, you can't, so you change the argument. Rat lied, and neither you nor he cares. Its OK to lie if you are promoting conspiracy theories.

As for your long post, it would be more impressive if it weren't plagiarised from http://www.originalintent.org/edu/fedincometax.php. Don't copy someone else's opinions and pretend they are your own.

What's better though is the way you delete all the parts of the article that make clear it is about interpretation and opinion, and you instead present it as fact. For example:

Why don't you try watching an actual court case. Both sides present legal arguments and opinions, and then the court decides. You are pretending that because someone can make a legal argument, then it must be true. It is not - it is just a legal argument. The courts decide - that's what they're for - and they have decided, again and again that these arguments do not stand up, and the people who use them to avoid taxes end up in prison or getting fined. That why Rat lied and then left the thread. Plagiarising material from tax protest websites doesn't change that.

 

First of all, I make no bones about shamelessly plagiarising originalintent, that is where I got all of my qoutes from. I thought I included the source link when I wrote it, sorry, i'm human too, after such a long post I fucked up........sue me. I don't feel that I presented anyones opinions as my own, especially when my ideology is aligned with that of originalintent. You accuse me of not publishing the entire article, but ask yourself, is it really practical to post such an enormously long article? I felt it better to just summarize it. To your accusation that it is simply an opinion and I presented it as fact, I believe the rulings and IRC code I provided speak for themselves. As far as objecting to your post, you made it very clear that you did not have the "time", and I object to every single thing you said, I have no idea of the validity of it, I know your a pompous blowhard, and I don't believe a word that you type, so unless your going to show me sources, it's all bullshit to me. Finally as far as PR goes, simply put he is his own man, with his own opinions, and his own voice. I could care less what accusation you layed against him, and whether or not he lied, it's not my problem and has nothing to do with me, so why then do you believe that I should care if he lied, or try to set the record straight?? It's not my place, I don't know whether he lied or not, and frankly it has no bearing on my opinion. Simply put, Matt's a big boy and can take care of himself, i'm not his public defender.

Once again Pointbreak, all you have done is selectively fact checked and muddied the waters, without ever offering concrete proof that i'm wrong.