Re:What is taxed in the Code?

[sublimetrance]

DrGerbil is a communist fool.

A true slave and lover of the income tax.

A tax on labor is absolute slavery.

[kbleuel]

I Noticed that you mention specific cases where the defendants cited 861 and lost. but I was wondering what section caused attorney Tom Cryer

of Louisiana to win his case? because I know that he did not cite 861. I think that his argument

was more focused on the unconstitutionality of

the tax code itself but I'm not sure.

[danpauselius]

I must agree with Mr. Gerbils, the 861 argument does NOT hold water. That said, not every American is liable to pay the federal income tax. The key is in the custom definitions listed in the code. Find the definitions for (Sec. 3121):

Employee, Employer, United States, State, US Person, Wages.

Also understand that because they give custom definitions of the words "includes" and "including" means that the common meaning ceases to exist under that area of the law.

[RhetoricallyDisabled]

doesn't the 13th amendment allow for income tax?

[ensrifraff]

That's the 16th. 13th abolished slavery.

[dnrly]

He has disabled the comments of his video for obvious reasons because he doesn't want people like me telling the truth. Right Mr. Gerbils. I'm a lying troll? you ought to try looking in a mirror. Still waiting for the magical "liability" word.

[DrGerbils]

Make up your mind. First "liable" was a magic word, then it wasn't, now it is again. You can't even keep your fantasies straight.

[DrGerbils]

Now that you have confirmed that you are just a lying troll, any future comments by you, other than one informing me that you have started a thread on the tax protestor board at Quatloos so the issues can be discussed, will be deleted.

[dnrly]

I did no know the word "liability" was magic word. I understand english just fine. I am not picking up what you are putting down.You need to have your head examined. Are you listening to what your saying, none of it makes any sense.

[dnrly]

I see your not serious because you did not do what I suggested by providing a law that makes anyone liable for income tax to back up all your goobly goob.

[DrGerbils]

I see that you are not seriously interested in discusiing this topic. If you were, you would have done as I have suggested and moved it to a more appropriate forum.

[dnrly]

Shirley Jackson, also a former IRS employee, quit when she tried to win $50,000 by finding the law that creates liability for an income tax for a front page ad ran in the USA today newspaper. Miss Jackson realized their is no law when no one at the IRS could show it to her and she could not find it anywhere. She now speaks out against the IRS after she had seen the truth.

[dnrly]

Joe Banister, a former IRS employee who resigned when he realized the truth, was also found not guilty of tax evasion by a California jury. no law no crime.

[dnrly]

Vernice Kuglin is another person found not guilty of paying FEDERAL income tax by a jury in Tennessee. She took the stand in her own defense and produced 3 letters asking the IRS at different levels to show her the law that made her liable and she would pay the $92,000 they said she owed. No law, no crime.

[dnrly]

he is another great link to an 8 min video of patriots at Ed browns house in New Hamshire. Telling how Ed was railroad, like Irwin Schiff, by the federal judiciary. People need to wake up, including my American friend Mr. Gerbils. Join the team and come on in for the big win.

[dnrly]

Do you think the founding fathers authored a direct tax on one's labor into the constitution and called their new country the land of the free. You are the only one telling outrageous lies and who ever believes you needs to have thier head examined.

[dnrly]

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. you know what that is Mr. gerbils. The second plank of the Communist Manifesto. Are you a Communist Mr. Gerbils? You refuse to face the facts that America is suppose to be a free country with a free people. Slaves have their fruits of their labor deprived from them. An income tax as you describe it deprives the American people the fruits of there labor.

[dnrly]

I haved cited plenty of case law and supreme court decisions and code sections. I am still waiting for you to show a law that makes people liable for income tax. the four IRC sections you gave do not, I repeat do not create liability. The word liability must be used like in the 3 sec I cited for other types of taxes. Hello! what don't you understand.

[DrGerbils]

The law does not depend on magic words. If you don't understand simple English, there really is no point in continuing.

[dnrly]

Liability, for example sec 4401 makes liabilty for wagering taxes, sec 5005 makes liability for alcohol taxes, sec 5703 makes liability for tobacco taxes. see how easy that was. show me liability for income taxes.

[dnrly]

Good luck Mr. gerbils keep paying your voluntary tax. According to Syracuse U over 65 million people did not even file last year and one third of IRS employees didn't file. I do not need to post to another site this is fine. It only takes a few lines to post the liability clause.

[DrGerbils]

Bullshit. All IRS employees file. It's a condition of their employment. I see you provided no cite to that Syracuse study, just as you have provided no cite supporting anything you've written.

\

[dnrly]

An Illinois stae income tax has a lot to do with a federal income tax because it says, just like in New York law, that if you are required to pay a federal income tax then you are liable for a state income tax. so the jury asked for the liability for the federal income tax and never received it, kinda like what your doing with me.

[dnrly]

sec 1 imposes the tax it does not make one liable. The statue imposing the tax must be seperate from the statue making liability see Highle v comm.. Sec 61 does not even have the word liability in it. LIAR. either does sec 1 for that matter. sec 6012, no word liability again, what don't you understand. You are truely clueless. same with 6151.

[DrGerbils]

See, I told you that you wouldn't concede even when shown the law.

[DrGerbils]

As I noted before, this is an incredibly awkward forum to discuss anything. I will not be responding to any further posts on the subject. Find a neutral forum that is set up to handle threads, links, etc. I have suggested one, but you continue to post here.

[dnrly]

Propaganda minister gerbils show me the law that makes me liable. You say I'm liable over and over, well show me. Your next post should have the law for liability. Watch, It won't. But yet you insist I'm liable, go figure. Your the one confused. I bet you make your living in some way off the income tax.

[DrGerbils]

Ah, the ad hominem argument, last defence of the untenable position.

As to whether you personally are liable, I can't say without additional information. You might make too little income to be liable.

Assuming your income is sufficient, IRC §§ 1, 61, 6012, and 6151 make you liable.

[dnrly]

In a case out of Illinois for income tax evasion, Whitey Harrell was found not guilty.( Lucky for him he had a jury that thinks). The jury repeatedly asked for the law that made Mr. Harrell liable for an income tax so they could find him guilty. The Judge and the prosecutor could not produce the law. No law, no crime, Mr. Harrel was found not guilty.

[DrGerbils]

Even if that were true, which I sincerely doubt, what would an Illinois state income tax case have to do with the federal income tax? I'll help you out. Absolutely nothing.

[dnrly]

the corp excise tax act 1909 was not intended to be and is not an income tax law because the 1894 Pollack case said in effect income was a direct tax upon property and was invalid because it was not apportioned to population as prescribed by the constitution. The 1909 act imposed not a direct tax but an indirect excise tax upon the conduct of business operating in a corporate capacity, measuring the the amount of tax by the corporations gain or profit also called income.

[dnrly]

Show me the law that makes me liable for an income tax if you say I'm liable and that will end this debate and I will conceede. Your definition of income is half correct. You forgot to mention the part about acting in a corporate capacity ,thus a privelege, which is taxable under the excise taxing clause of the constitution. In Stratton's Independence LTD v Howbert, 231 US 399 (1913) it says in summary-- cont'd

[DrGerbils]

No you won't. The statute is written for pepople who understand English. In particular you need to understand the word "income". You have demonstrated that you do not.

[dnrly]

If you have yourself convinced that you have to pay an unappotioned dircet tax on your labor then more power to you keep paying a voluntary tax. I for one go by the law. Until some one shows me that i am liable for an income tax I do not have to pay it because i am not liable. " Liability for taxation must clearly appear from the statue imposing tax." (see Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue).

[DrGerbils]

You seem confused. We're discussing the income tax, not some hypothetical tax on labor. If you're liable for the income tax, ignorance might keep you out of jail, but it doesn't change the fact that you're liable.

[dnrly]

I am not confused, I am not ignorant, we are discussing an income tax. Your saying I owe it. I say I can't owe it.The only thing I do is trade my labor for FRNs at an even trade with no gain. I am not a corporation but a natural born citizen of the US. The Merchant's case includes labor but being used in a corporate sense not at the source.

[DrGerbils]

Nonsense. There would be no reason for the Court to give a definition of income which applied only to corporations in a case in which corporate income was never discussed. You are both confused and ignorant. Try reading, or at least skimming, a case before commenting on it. You might look less foolish.

[dnrly]

I have read the cases, I always check people sources. The Corporation excise tax act of 1909 is the bases for the definition of income as used in the law which specifically says a tax based on gain through corporate activity,its as plain as that. Your explanation that it is not limited to corporate profits is nonsense because that is the very definition.

[DrGerbils]

If there were case law supporting the absurd notion that only corporations have income, someone in the tax dishonesty movement would have found it and cited it. No one, including the apparent originator of that particular bit of bunk, Irwin Schiff, has ever done so.

[DrGerbils]

"Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets." MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), citing Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207. There's nothing there limiting income to corporations.

[dnrly]

So if your using the supreme courts definition then income means corporate profits. Just show me the law that makes me liable if you say people have to pay it. The disclosure, privacy act and paper reduction act notice in the 2006 1040 instruction booklet page 80 paragraph 3 states" that you must file a return for any tax you are liable for. If your so positive show me right now where is the liability clause in the code.

[DrGerbils]

"So if your using the supreme courts definition then income means corporate profits."

The Supreme Court has never said that income is limited to corporate profits. You would know that if you read court cases instead of tax denier lies.

This is a very awkward format for a discussion. If you're really interested in a discussion of the validity of the income tax, start a thread on the Quatloos forum or any other appropriate forum, i.e, one without restrictions on access and posting.

[DrGerbils]

I use the same definition as the US Supreme Court.

[dnrly]

what is your definition of income ( not gross income)? Mr. schultz reminds people that their donations are tax deductable because they are. Corporations make donations to you know.

[DrGerbils]

But BS doesn't say only corporation's donations are tax deductable. So either he's lying, or he knows the income tax is perfectly valid.

[DrGerbils]

IRC §§1 sure looks like a tax to me. And if there's no tax, why does Bob Shulz always remind contributors that their contributions are tax deductible?

[TWFdreamer]

No Tax, No Law! www/ givemeliberty/ org.