1. What is the definition of the word Income as used in the Internal Revenue code? Please cite the source of authority?

2. Is the Income tax a Direct tax or Indirect tax?

• What statute makes me liable for the Individual Income Tax? (Please cite statute and corresponding regulation).

• What form is required by law to pay the Individual Income tax and where does the law say that? (Please cite statute and regulation).

Lets look at the four questions and see why they are important and need to be answered.

1. What is the definition of the word Income as used in the Internal Revenue code?

Gross Income, taxable income, adjusted gross income are words defined in the Income tax code. They are a subspecies of the word income. One cannot understand the meaning of these terms without having a definition of the word income. There is no definition of the word income in the income tax code. We want the official definition of the word. (Hint: Income, profit separated from its capital source). Note/ Please do not cite court cases. The executive branch of government enforces the law. What law are you enforcing?

2. Is the Income tax a Direct tax or an Indirect tax?

The constitution allows for two types of taxation with specific rules that govern each specie of tax. A direct tax must be apportioned and indirect taxes must be uniform. I know if it's a direct tax that the income tax is not apportioned and if it's an indirect tax it's not uniform. So what is it?

3. What statute makes me liable for the Individual Income Tax?

Not one person, lawyer, accountant or tax preparer that I've asked this question can answer it, and I have asked many. Not one. If I called the County Sheriff and asked him what statute would I be violating if I take my neighbors car without asking him, he would say Wisconsin state statutes § XXXXXXXX Grand Theft Auto. The law can be looked up in a book of Wisconsin state statutes. It is knowable. The same cannot be said about the income tax law. I've looked.

Ask a government official the same question and they act as if the law that requires someone to pay the Individual Income tax is classified information. I wonder what they are hiding?

4. What form is required by law to pay the Individual Income tax and where does the law say that.

Government agencies promulgate rules governing its interaction with the public in accordance with the laws passed by congress. They are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. This one should be easy for the IRS. So what say you, IRS?

We live in a nation where the rule of law governs. I am not against taxes. I understand the government's need for revenue to meet the legitimate functions of government. The legitimate needs of all the people will never be met if the government refuses to meet its obligation to inform us of the laws we are accountable for. Its time to stop playing hide the ball. The American people have a right to answers from their elected officials. You can all help me get the answers to these important questions. I have officially sent a letter to my elected officials and the IRS requesting answers to these questions. I have copies of the letters and this article on my web site at www.rraymond.org. I will pay out of my own pocket the cost of placing the IRS's replies in the paper so you will know the answers and can feel confident that the laws are being applied correctly. Please take part in our effort to get answers to these important questions. You can help by sharing this information with your friends and family. Lets make sure that every American is aware of this issue. If you can, consider paying to run this article in your local paper. Or make a donation so we can run this article in all the major newspapers around the country. Thousands of your fellow Americans, your neighbors, are being abused daily without knowing the legal foundation for their abusers actions. Don't let them suffer another day without getting straight answers.

http://www.rraymond.org/irs_let.htm

"Not one person, lawyer, accountant or tax preparer that I've asked this question can answer it, and I have asked many. Not one. If I called the County Sheriff and asked him what statute would I be violating if I take my neighbors car without asking him, he would say Wisconsin state statutes § XXXXXXXX Grand Theft Auto. The law can be looked up in a book of Wisconsin state statutes. It is knowable. The same cannot be said about the income tax law. I've looked."

That is utter bull, Hal. Your problem is that you have been reading the nonsense from the few nuts that are not already in prison that maintain that there is no legal basis for the income tax and you don't have to pay it. You might be better off actually reading the US Constitution, specifically the 16th amendment, passed in 1913.


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.

Shelly

Why did you all allow them to pass an amendment to tax income in the first place?

I bet now that people know there would be no way you could get enough popular vote to pass a tax amendment. They have trouble passing .25% sales tax increases around here.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Our sales tax is something like 8.6% in Washington State, but we have no state income tax. Over in Idaho, sales tax is like 4.8% and I'm not sure about a state income tax. Anyhow, that's the main reason why Moscow has a huge amount of retail stores while Pullman has a shitty Radio Shack and a pet store. Not to mention the cigarette tax, a carton of name-brands will run you about $38 in Pullman, about $25 in Moscow.

That is utter bull, Hal. Your problem is that you have been
>reading the nonsense from the few nuts that are not already in
>prison that maintain that there is no legal basis for the
>income tax and you don't have to pay it. You might be better
>off actually reading the US Constitution, specifically the
>16th amendment, passed in 1913.

And your problem is that you rarely, if ever, question authority. Many people believe that the Sixteenth Amendment was, and still is unconstitutional.

I cannot imagine the people banding together in order to impose another tax upon themselves and I certainly cannot imagine them going through the time, effort, and expense of amending the Constitution in order to do so. It just seems so contrary to basic human nature. But I can imagine them banding together in order to amend the Constitution and impose an Income Tax on someone or something other than themselves—the earnings of the wealthy, for instance. And this is what they did, even though the Government today would have us believe that the Constitution was amended so that the people could impose a new Income Tax on virtually every penny that they themselves earned. Does anyone really believe that this is what happened? I don’t think so.

http://www.zeroincometax.com/page4.html

Nine old men in Washington DC decide what is, or is not constitutional. Their decisions change over time, depending on the individuals currently constituting the nine, the political winds, and the current notion of what is fair, right, and legal.

Their opinion is the only one that counts, because the Constitution gave them the right to make those decisions. The Constitution also specifies how these nine men (and women) will be selected.

Although I frequently disagree with some of their opinions, I defend their right to make them. To think otherwise leads to anarchy.

Ray

People who depend on getting nice fat paychecks because of something are rarely going to ever say that it's illegal when they can just as easily say it is.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>And your problem is that you rarely, if ever, question
>authority. Many people believe that the Sixteenth Amendment
>was, and still is unconstitutional.

An amendment can't be unconstitutional, HAL. It is an amendment to the Constitution, and therefore part of the Constitution.

"An amendment can't be unconstitutional, HAL. It is an
>amendment to the Constitution, and therefore part of the
>Constitution.

Amendments can, and have been repealed, as was the Eighteenth Amendment along with the passage of the Volstead Act, which defined "intoxicating liquors", and established Prohibition. The amendment was ratified and later repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment.

The 16th amendment has been upheld through repeated court challenges. Hal, I live in the real world, not the wishful thinking illusionary world you seem to be in. I also know that having a country requires the willingness to support it. Everything carries a price tag, and a value. I think the value of this country is high, and the price tag is a bargain. Maybe you should shop around for a better deal.

Shelly

The 16th amendment has been upheld through repeated court challenges because of the massive revenue at stake.

You define my world as "illusionary" and suggest I “shop around for a better deal” because I challenge certain aspects of the system, and you say these things with contempt for the very democracy you accuse me of not appreciating, seemingly blind to the concepts stated in Declaration of Independence which clearly encourage dissent and open criticism of the government.

BTW, I never even voiced my support of Tax Revolt. I merely posted the information.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

<"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
>created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with
>inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life,
>liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

While were on the subject, a last minute change was made in The Declaration of Independence from John Locke’s phrase of “Among these fundamental natural rights are life, liberty, and property" to “life, liberty” and the subjective, meaningless word, “happiness.”

From "property" to "happiness" should give one a clue whose interests the framers had in mind. I've probably said this before, but if you go back to the record of the Constitutional Convention, James Madison--who was the main framer, and one of the founding fathers--makes it very clear that the new constitutional system must be designed so as to insure that the government will, in his words "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

No one denies you the right of dissent Hal, but I suspect you know little of the kind of life much of the rest of the world lives. Oh, you know what you may have read, but have you been there, seen it with your own eyes? I have. Let me tell you that the poorest most hopeless person in this country has a better life than 70% of the world's population. So I suggest you shop around, and see if you can find a better deal, with more freedom, a better standard of living and at a better price, lower taxes. Maybe you'll get lucky, and let us know of such a paradise. I have seen much of this world and I have not found it. You need not quote the documents of our freedom to me, I think I may have read and understood them before you were born.

Shelly

I realize America is by far the freest country, and as a result, many documents are available through the FOIA that disclose numerous attempts made by the US government to subvert freedom in other countries all around the world. And when you have an obedient media, most of America doesn't know because they're not told. That's a failing of democracy.

"I suspect you know little of the kind of life much of the rest of the world lives. Oh, you know what you may have read, but have you been there, seen it with your own eyes?"

I been around a little more than you might think Shelly. And I've been in the heart of the ghettos in many big cities in this country.

Let me tell you that the poorest most hopeless person in this country has a better life than 70% of the world's population.

Maybe, if you're white. There are places in the deep south, Tennessee, Kentucky, Harlem, South Chicago, East LA, and New York that are no better than being in the third world. America has the widest gap between the rich and poor of any of the industrialized nations.

Race card, huh, HAL? Getting desperate, aren't you?

Here's plenty of information about frivolous tax arguments:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

This document includes the arguments, the reasons why they aren't valid, and the court cases where the arguments were struck down.

Maybe you think it's a bargain...I don't. Maybe if I could afford an actual home to live in instead of a crowded apartment, I would think it's a bargain. Maybe if I didn't have to live paycheck to paycheck, I would think it's a bargain. Maybe if I didn't have to sweat blood and tears every time I have to file my taxes I would think it's a bargain. I don't mind paying taxes on some things....but 20 to 30 percent??? That's not a bargain.

Since the Feudal system of the middle ages, nothing much has changed. The heaviest burden of taxes are still on the poor, proving that although political systems may change, the innate structure is the same. The financial elite have held power over the poor throughout history.

>Since the Feudal system of the middle ages, nothing much has
>changed. The heaviest burden of taxes are still on the poor,
>proving that although political systems may change, the innate
>structure is the same. The financial elite have held power
>over the poor throughout history.


More of your BS, Hal. You probably have not heard about it, but the truly poor in this country not only do not pay income taxes, they receive an earned income tax credit...Money from the government. Feudal societies did not have a progressive tax system, we do!

Shelly

I'm talking about working class America--not the destitute--as it relates to the working peasants in the Feudal System.

And Americans may pay fewer taxes up front than many other countries, but they don't get anything on the other end like universal healthcare, decent public education, inexpensive housing, childcare services, dental care, and other benefits.

>Maybe you think it's a bargain...I don't. Maybe if I could
>afford an actual home to live in instead of a crowded
>apartment, I would think it's a bargain. Maybe if I didn't
>have to live paycheck to paycheck, I would think it's a
>bargain. Maybe if I didn't have to sweat blood and tears every
>time I have to file my taxes I would think it's a bargain. I
>don't mind paying taxes on some things....but 20 to 30
>percent??? That's not a bargain.

I have known poverty in my life, Jenn. There is not much you can tell me about it that I don't know. If you pay 20 to 30 percent of your income in taxes, you are a long way from living in poverty. I also know that in this country unlike in much of this world, we are not locked into it for all our lives. We can improve our situation if we have the will, and work at it. There is no caste system here, and many have done it. I can't say I never groused at the amount of taxes I pay, and I curse about the money our government wastes through stupidity, or corruption, or ineptitude. I used to work for a year or more for much less money than I pay in taxes every year. But believe me, it's a bargain.

Shelly

>I have known poverty in my life, Jenn. There is not much you
>can tell me about it that I don't know. If you pay 20 to 30
>percent of your income in taxes, you are a long way from
>living in poverty. I also know that in this country unlike in
>much of this world, we are not locked into it for all our
>lives. We can improve our situation if we have the will, and
>work at it. There is no caste system here, and many have done
>it. I can't say I never groused at the amount of taxes I pay,
>and I curse about the money our government wastes through
>stupidity, or corruption, or ineptitude. I used to work for a
>year or more for much less money than I pay in taxes every
>year. But believe me, it's a bargain.
>

Actually Shelly, I'm real close to poverty - not quite there yet, but close. When I see what comes out of mine and my husbands earnings, I just want to sit down and cry. I work my butt off to make money, and I long ago realized that if I want to be more financially secure, I had better work for myself, which is why I started two businesses - neither of which makes me rich - yet. But, I digress. The reality for me is that if the government didn't take so much of what I earned, I would not be so close to financial disaster. What burns me even more is that there are so many, many people like me, and worse, in this country, and the whole time the government is siphoning off my income, they are turning around and handing a bunch of it over to other "needy" countries. Why in the name of Sam Hill can't our goverment make sure it's own people are taken care of before they send my money off to save everyone else's?
Well, I guess I have officially aired all of my dirty laundry for the masses to see......I'll probably regret it tomorrow

You're not alone believe me. There are people all over the country who agree with you. All your tax dollars go to the Pentagon to pay for war so people like Cheney and his pals can amass enormous fortunes off the backs of the hard working American tax payer.

"I think the value of this country is high, and the price tag is a bargain"

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?
BS. It's a government of and for the people, not the people of and for the government.

I don't think gas tax, property tax, liquor tax, sales tax, cigarette tax, federal income tax, state income tax, use tax, vehicle tax and all these other taxes was what they had in mind when they dumped tea into the harbor because England refused to remove the tax on it (the only tax they wouldn't remove).

Hal is right in sorts. The thought of an income tax is unconstitutional and goes against a major reason this country was formed. The only reason the 16th is not unconstitutional is because by definition an amendment can't be unconstitutional. In a "spirit of the document" or "intent of the founders" way, the income tax is unconstitutional. It never should've been proposed let alone passed.

We didn't have the government spending problems before we got all these taxes. The more taxes we get the more the government does to try to spend it in order to justify there being more government. It's a vicious circle, that the blind patriotism of people for the government drives.

Jefferson managed to buy the LA Purchase and still ran us with a surplus without income taxes.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Yes, We know the Libertarian catechism. This country had an Income tax long before the 16th amendment. We had an income tax enacted in 1862 to support the Civil War.

From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

Shelly

>Yes, We know the Libertarian catechism. This country had an
>Income tax long before the 16th amendment. We had an income
>tax enacted in 1862 to support the Civil War.
>
>From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported
>by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined
>sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate
>bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought
>about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware,
>jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with
>all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to
>provide sufficient funds for running the government.
>

These taxes were temporary and in fact the taxes on tobacco and distilled spirits were later discontinued because the "U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution."

This is a pathetic attempt to justify a perpetual tax on income, especially since many today believe all their tax dollars go to the Pentagon to fund wars and subversive intervention in other countries to pave the way for big business and corporate profit as was done with the Panama Canal. The British did the same when they taxed the early colonists to fund the French-Indian War -- and this along with The Stamp Act, and other taxation led to the revolution.

Do you ever wonder how many of the people who are pro-tax/anti-tax-cut ever donated more of their money to the government?

I know when I get a bargain because the pizza boy tells me of a better deal I donate the money to delivery guy.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

It wasn't repealed because it was unconstitutional, HAL, it was repealed because another amendment was passed to negate it. Until the same happens in regards to the 16th amendment, any claim that income tax is unconstitutional is clearly and plainly bogus.

>It wasn't repealed because it was unconstitutional, HAL, it
>was repealed because another amendment was passed to negate
>it.

Another amendment was passed to negate it because the former amendment was judged to be unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional defined is: Not consistent with or according to a constitution; contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Hal, you really should learn some history and law before masquerading as an expert.

An amendment to the Constitution can not be unconstitutional by definition. To become approved it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This is spelled out in the Constitution and is the only way the document can be amended, and once properly ratified is the supreme law of the land.

The 16th amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

The 18th amendment was passed largely through the efforts of prohibitionists in 1918-1919, at a time when a large portion of the male population was off fighting WW1. I was repealed in 1933 by the 21st amendment largely because the law was nearly impossible to enforce, and lead to the enrichment and empowerment of organized crime. As long as the 18th amendment was in effect it was the law and constitutional. It remained so until it was repealed bu the 21st amendment. Ultimately only the supreme Court can determine constitutionality, and they have no power to declare an existing part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional. Only the people through their elected representatives can change the Constitution.

Nobody gives a damn whether you like or dislike the laws of this country. If enough people in this country agreed with you, the 16th amendment would have long since been repealed. The fact is that only a few other nuts agree with you. the rest of the people have the intelligence to realize that it takes money to have a country, to defend it, and to see to the interests of its citizens.

Shelly

LOL!

Don’t you think it overkill, and juvenile to list every state that ratified. That you were compelled to do such is more than poignantly humorous. All that typing amounts this: the amendment could be repealed, and by much the same process as an amendment is ratified. An amendment is repealed because it is determined to be contrary to the will and benifit of the people for which the amendment was orginally designed.

Let’s get something straight: I don’t advocate tax revolt. I have not suggested in any of my posts that one should refuse to pay taxes. All I’ve done is raise the issue on behalf of others that do revolt and played the devils advocate in doing so. For you to resort to name calling only confirms what I and others here have always known: You aren’t quite as august and dignified as you give yourself credit for dear fellow.

That was a cut and paste. Hal. When I cut and paste I am generous because it osts me nothing. My posts are not for your benefit, that would be a waste of time. They are to set the record straight for others that might be swayed by your charm.

Shelly

Charm? Bruwahaaaaaaa! Like a t*** in a punchbowl?

If an amendment was passed to allow slavery, would you stand idle because it was constitutional by definition? Just because something is constitutional by amendment or constitutional by court decree doesn't make it right or in line with the rest of Constitution.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

That's idiotic. An amendment allowing slavery could not be proposed or passed in this country, now or in the future.

Shelly

I imagine there were those who said the same thing about income tax at one time.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>I imagine there were those who said the same thing about
>income tax at one time.

LOL!

Jury acquits pilot, who questioned IRS, of tax-evasion counts

(Note: This very important decision was relegated to the NINTH slot on the Local News section of the online version of TCA.)

(Important note from Bob Schulz of We The People: IRS Loses A Big One - Memphis Pilot Acquitted of Tax Evasion/Charged With Filing "False" W-4s. On Friday, a Memphis federal jury acquitted FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin of six counts of felony Tax Evasion and Willful Failure to File tax returns. Ms. Kuglin's attorneys, Tax Honesty Movement barristers Larry Becraft <http://www.larrybecraft.com> and Robert G. Bernhoft, told reporters that Kuglin was indicted seven months ago and had refused to plead the case out for a lesser sentence. Kuglin testified that since 1995, she had sent numerous letters to the IRS requesting that they inform her of what law required her to pay the Individual Income Tax. To this day, she has not received an answer. At 1:30 Friday afternoon, the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all counts. After the jury had been excused, the U.S. Attorney reportedly demanded that the Judge order the defendant to file her forms, pay her taxes and obey the law. The Judge reportedly replied, "Sir, I don't work for the IRS." The case is: U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee # 03-CR-20111, USA v. Kuglin.)

August 9, 2003

By Shirley Downing

downing@gomemphis.com

The Commercial Appeal

495 Union Ave.

Memphis, TN 38103

1-800-444-6397 (NEWS) or 901-529-2788

http://wwwgomemphis.com

To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@gomemphis.com

U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee # 03-CR-20111, USA v. Kuglin

A federal jury Friday found FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin not guilty of evading income taxes on $920,000.

The question of tax payment was unresolved at the end of the five-day trial.

"I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," said defense attorney Robert Bernhoft of Milwaukee.

"I feel justified," a grinning Kuglin said after the verdict was returned at mid-afternoon. She stood outside the federal building, chatting with supporters and jurors.

Federal prosecutor Joe Murphy was not available for comment.

Kuglin, 58, was charged with six counts of tax evasion that could have meant up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

The government accused Kuglin of filing false W4 forms for the period from 1996 to 2001.

Kuglin, a pilot for FedEx since 1985, said she had paid taxes like anyone else for most of her life. But about 10 or 11 years ago, she began to question the federal tax system. She began to read court documents, legal opinions and the federal tax code.

She said she found what she felt were contradictions. She wanted to know where in the federal tax code it said she was liable for taxes.

Kuglin wrote the Internal Revenue Service twice in 1995 with questions but said she didn't get a response.

Murphy, in closing arguments on Thursday, said Kuglin did have an opportunity to discuss her situation with the IRS, to learn what she owed and what documents she was required to file "and she didn't."

Defense attorney Larry Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama, said Kuglin decided mandatory payment of income taxes "did not apply to her."

After the verdict Friday, Becraft said the federal tax code is a confusing conglomeration that "at best is a walking due process violation."

He said the average American simply doesn't understand the tax code.

Juror Barbara Snodgras of Memphis said the jury did not convict because "we all felt that the prosecution didn't prove its case."

When asked if she planned to start paying federal income taxes again, Kuglin replied: "I will pay all the taxes for which I am liable."

http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_2169609,00.html

Other recommended reading:

http://www.larrybecraft.com

http://www.givemeliberty.org/

The funniest thing about this whole thread is that not a single person here has read or could even begin to explain the entire Internal Revenue Code, much less their individual state codes.

And one of the great side effects of its gargantuan size is that it has created two distinct classes of individuals: those that can spend their lives studying it and hiring out their information, and those that can afford the huge fees involved.

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2004/01/12/focus5.html

Here's the big enchilada.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/

Just reading through TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I, Sec. 1. or TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART IV, Subpart A, Sec. 26 should be lots of fun.

And a small look at what an IRS agent does. Sounds almost like Blockbuster, who 2 years ago happily proclaimed that 80% of their profits came from unannounced changes in their late rental fees.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos260.htm

So propose an amendment for slavery, Myk, and see if you can get it passed. Good luck.

Have you and Shelly ever heard of conceptual thinking? Or is it that the concept doesn't support what you are trying to say.

How about we propose an amendment to illegalize guns instead. Is that one too far off for you to think could happen?

Amendments to the Constitution can be against the spirit of the document and go against what the founding fathers had in mind for this country.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Have you and Shelly ever heard of conceptual thinking...Amendments to the Constitution can be against the spirit of the document and go against what the founding fathers had in mind for this country.


One wouldn't think any of this would be that difficult to understand; but I think the problem is that conceptual thinking--a critical component for independent thought--isn't really encouraged in America's current political climate. Anything outside the defined spectrum of thought...well see we have officials for that, you know, Supreme Court judges and senators and see that's what we get paid for, so you just show up every now and then, and vote. See, we’ve already decided what’s law and not law, and constitutional and unconstitutional, so don’t you go and bother thinking about any of that. You just decide which one of us you’re going to vote for.

"Oh they're not scared of you. They're scared of what you represent to them. ... What you represent to them is freedom. ... Oh, yeah; that's right, that's what it's all about, all right. But talking about it and being it, that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace.

Course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you and talk to you about individual freedom, but they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em."

--Easy Rider

>"Oh they're not scared of you. They're scared of what you
>represent to them. ... What you represent to them is freedom.
>... Oh, yeah; that's right, that's what it's all about, all
>right. But talking about it and being it, that's two different
>things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought
>and sold in the marketplace.
>
>Course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, cause
>then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove
>to you that they are. Oh yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and
>talk to you and talk to you about individual freedom, but they
>see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em."
>
>--Easy Rider


Using movies for sources again, huh HAL?

Try reading a book...

>How about we propose an amendment to illegalize guns instead.
>Is that one too far off for you to think could happen?


Go for it. Good luck.

Sounds like you are for whatever the courts or population decide. Big turn around from the same person who was being told that his oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic was treason.

I guess the domestic enemies are OK now.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

If sufficient of the population support changing the Constitution, and it gets done, then that is what I support. There is a reason that an amendment process exists, Myk. The founders weren't as arrogant and bull-headed as you.

So Hitler gets elected (that's a far stretch isn't it) and that's the way it is, huh? You are no longer SF but SS? I guess I'm bullheaded.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>>It wasn't repealed because it was unconstitutional, HAL,
>it
>>was repealed because another amendment was passed to
>negate
>>it.
>
>Another amendment was passed to negate it because the former
>amendment was judged to be unconstitutional.
>
>Unconstitutional defined is: Not consistent with or according
>to a constitution; contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
>
>


Are you actually that stupid?

Answers from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf where I say "The IRS says."

>1. What is the definition of the word Income as used in the
>Internal Revenue code?

The IRS says:

For federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all
income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for
services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded.

>Note/ Please do not cite
>court cases. The executive branch of government enforces the
>law. What law are you enforcing?

The executive branch may enforce the law, but the judicial branch (the courts) reviews the laws for constitutionality. Congress and the President may make and enforce a law, but if a court strikes it down, it's no longer law. (Unless it's made into a constitutional amendment, which is difficult to do.)

>2. Is the Income tax a Direct tax or an Indirect tax?
>
>The constitution allows for two types of taxation with
>specific rules that govern each specie of tax. A direct tax
>must be apportioned and indirect taxes must be uniform. I know
>if it's a direct tax that the income tax is not apportioned
>and if it's an indirect tax it's not uniform. So what is it?

The IRS says:

Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct
non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.

The Law: The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited to Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the “sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation.”

>
>3. What statute makes me liable for the Individual Income
>Tax?

The 16th Amendment

>
>4. What form is required by law to pay the Individual Income
>tax and where does the law say that.

The specific forms vary depending on your circumstances, but everyone must file a 1040. This is contained in the tax code.

The IRS Says:

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.

>http://www.rraymond.org/irs_let.htm

BTW, the author of this article, Robert R. Raymond, has already lost a court case against the government for selling "untaxing packages." These are packages that claim to free people from the need to pay taxes:

The IRS Says:

United States v. Raymond, 228 F.3d 804, 812 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2242 (2001) – the court affirmed a permanent injunction against taxpayers who promoted a “De-Taxing America Program,” forbidding them from engaging in certain activities that incited others to violate tax laws. The court said, “e conclude that the statements the appellants made in the Just Say No advertisement were representations concerning the tax benefits of purchasing and following the De-Taxing America Program that the appellants reasonably should have known were false.”

More information:

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/0responses/2000-1412.resp.html

If you trust this guy to give you tax advice, I know someone from Nigeria who would like to make you a business proposal.

LOL!

You can blather on all you like. The fact is, there are those who have opposed the tax law as unconstitutional for years and claim they don't file based on their knowledge, and have never been bothered by the IRS--I could care less if you believe me or not.

Additionally, there are people who claim they write on their tax returns that they're refusing to pay taxes in protest against the war, and they also claim to not be bothered by the IRS.

Well, if this guy is claiming that he's never been bothered by the IRS then he's flat out lying. No matter how many people try to contest it or claim to not file and not be bothered, it doesn't change the fact that it is illegal to not file taxes. Just because someone claims to have gotten away with it doesn't make it ok. People have gotten away with theft, murder, and tons of other crimes. If they post a web site saying that they broke into 20 homes and got away with it, does it make it alright?

>LOL!
>
>You can blather on all you like. The fact is, there are those
>who have opposed the tax law as unconstitutional for years and
>claim they don't file based on their knowledge, and have never
>been bothered by the IRS--I could care less if you believe me
>or not.
>
>Additionally, there are people who claim they write on their
>tax returns that they're refusing to pay taxes in protest
>against the war, and they also claim to not be bothered by the
>IRS.


Hal, this is baloney. I worked with a guy that tried it. He got by for about 3 years, but when they came for him, it cost him a bundle.

That is entirely not true that they won't come after you. They will.

However, if you choose to try it, go for it. But be forewarned, they will extract their pound of flesh from you. Sooner, or later.

Sort of like the old, "Pay me now, or pay me later" plan. But, you will pay. Hauxfan!

>Hal, this is baloney. I worked with a guy that tried it. He
>got by for about 3 years, but when they came for him, it cost
>him a bundle.

And I'm sure that's exactly what the IRS loves for you to believe. You don't think for a minute people who don't pay taxes are going to be frontpage news do you? Nor I suspect are many going to brag about it.

Why isn't your incredulity directed at corporations who are given tax cuts tantamount to criminal tax evasion when compared to the rest of us? Why isn't the great looming IRS enraged and on the trail of hunting down corporations that open up manufacturing plants in third world countries to avoid taxes here in the states? Why aren't you and others as scornful about tax evading corporations who get government bailouts of millions of tax dollars because they screwed up and were about to go out of business.

And so here you all are, appalled at the notion that the little guy questions the tax system as being unfair while you turn a blind eye to the massive taxes not being paid by corporations. Tell me, how much are they paying you guys? Or is it just that misery loves company.

Hal - there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

The former is legal whilst the latter isn't.

Vijay

I don't file a 1040, Jason...don't make enough money.




DavyWavy

If you want to complain about tax, come here to Australia. One of the top (if not the top) taxed countries in the world, and victoria (where I come from)is the highest taxed state, go figure. I recently visited your country for 2 months visiting all the southern states, for which I saved up for 6 years. USofA takes a lot of beating believe me. There is nothing you can do about the tax individually or even collectively no matter who you have in charge. So just think of somebody less fortunate and you will feel a lot better, like the kids in Africa, and stop whinging.

Y'all have a nice day

john macklin

There is nothing you can do about the tax individually or even collectively no matter who you have in charge.

Yeah, that's what the IRS says to people like I included in post #44( I guess you missed it), and that's what the British said to the first American colonists.

BTW Macklin, just curious, what kind of health care benefits, housing for the poor, and dental care do you have there?

Just a side note, but I noticed when Saddam was captured he got a free dental exam --something most Americans don't get.

Hello Hal

Health care --- you can pay an exhorbitant medical bill if you can afford it. Or you can join a medical scheme called medicare for which you pay a percentage of your wage per annum. (A brief resume)

Housing for the poor ----- We have what are called housing commission homes which are supplied by the government at a percentage of your pension or unemployment pay, or a percentage of any other means of payment if you are willing to wait 8 to 10 years. If not then pay about $150.00 for a dump of a place or live with relatives or in a cardboard box or park bench as many do here.

Dental -------- pay a dentist about $100.00 to have a tooth out, if you are unable to pay this because of different circumstances then wait for about 5 years to have it done for a small payment (depending. If you translate the difference in exchange rate and you pay less, remember we pay much more for many other items than you do in the states we nearly dropped when we saw the price of petrol, and when we went shopping for groceries we found that for 2 of us in the US it would have cost us 3 times more in Australia. In the US the roads were better, and the people much more polite, also many many items were considerably cheaper with a much greater variety.

Thank you

Jean Bloom

Davy,

You are still required by law to file a 1040. Failure to do so is a $100 fine per annum.

And that's an order!

Only if you owe taxes. I didn't file for 97-99 and wasn't charged a penny when I finally got the information I needed to do it. And I didn't file an extension either. Got my return and it was exactly what it should have been if I had filed on time each year.

I'm amazed that no one has even looked at the wealth of information that you can browse at the irs.gov web site!

The answer to the subject header for this thread is right here, which defines taxable income (and who needs to file):
http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040gi/ar02.html#d0e4824

To answer any other argument against tax law brought up in this thread, check out this publication: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf