Humans= DUMB! Common sense like Hitler killing the Jews , what a dumb bitch these people are the finished product of "our accredited educational institutions" give an effin break !
On June 4, 1963, JFK signed Executive Order No. 11110. With this Order JFK was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of NY out of business. 11110 gave the Treasury the power to issue silver certificates. If enough silver certificates circulated they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. Perhaps JFK's assassination was a warning to future presidents who try to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Fed's control over the creation of money. copy and repost 3X
The U.S Supreme Court has ruled that the taxing limitation in Art.1, sec.2, clause 3; and Art. 1, Sec. 9
Clause 4 of the constitution prohibiting the Fed. Gov. from imposing ANY tax directly ON the people, are still in effect. And that the 16th Amend. did NOT nullify those limitations nor authorize any direct tax ON the people.
It is title 26 that keeps the CORPORATION in check.There is no law that requires the average american worker in the private sector to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor.
The Internal Revenue Code is the law passed by congress. You are to be taxed on all taxable income. It even defines what's taxable and what's not. You're either ignorant or a liar.
Ever heard of the Internal Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code? Apparently not. This is the law concerning taxes.
The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1
The law says you are to be taxed on taxable income. Your check is taxable income. How is that a lie? I don't understand your argument.
Again, the internal revenue code says your check is taxable. The IRC is law. There is a law. Whether or not you like that law or think it is unlawful, it is still the present law in the country and it's not going to change anytime soon. Sorry.
@SendARope You're an idiot.. plain and simple. USC Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, § 1. Clearly states exactly what income is taxable, and whom is responsible to pay it. It's law, passed by Congress, available for all to read on the web.
@llamabait the law states taxabe INCOME. The word income is defined as an annual tax levied by the Federal government, most states, and some local governments, on an individual's or corporation's net profit. When working an 8 hour day you have NO net profit as you just made a fair trade of your time for money. The Supreme Court has numerous times ruled that your hourly wage is NOT income and is NOT tax able by law. Show me the part of the code that makes my energy in my body a good that is
@polevaultrockstr The Supreme Court has never ruled that hourly wages aren't income. NEVER. If you think it has, post a citation.
Section 61(a)(1) of the Code makes your wages included in gross income. Your "foreign commerce" argument is a rehash of the bogus "Section 861" argument that has been consistently rejected by the courts and that hasn't a shred of legal support. It's so worthless that its chief proponent didn't even reiase it at his own tax evasion trial.
@llamabait worth money and making me a "profit." If you go and look at the "sources" in the law book it names only things that deal with foreign commerce and non resident aliens. The law clearly defines everything that is taxable, even stating that some of those thing state might NOT be taxable under the constitution, but it leaves out any kind of reference to the income of legal residents of the US that do not partake in foreign commerce. It is because we are not taxable!!!!
@SendARope Section 3402 doesn't say that. It says an officer of a corp or a government official is included in the definition, but in accordance with Section 7701(c), that doesn't mean that all other employed persons aren't included as well.
@prof5string YES IT DOES!!!!! Why have a law that clearly states who is taxable, but just throw everyone else in becasue you think they should be? You cannot read tax law and assume that you understand the vocabulary as it is specific to the statues they define. When a law list the applicable situations, it is to be assumed that all other situations are not liable under THAT specific law. So if you can point me to the section that does discuss all of us other employed persons I would love to
@polevaultrockstr Read Section 7701(c) of the Code, which says that when "includes" is used in a definition, you don't exclude other things that are otherwise included in the defined term. In the case of "employee", the inclusion of corp officers & govt officials doesn't mean it excludes people otherwise included in the normal meaning of "employee". Courts have consistently rejected the argument that "includes" as used in 3402 is restrictive; in fact, one court called the argument "inane".
@prof5string why don't you read section 5841 that requires the Secretary of the Treasury to keep a record of ALL firearms in the united states. Now accoding to you, the Secretary of the Treasury is breaking the law, as there is no such registry. And why would they even bother to define "firearms," conisidereing well all know what a gun is right? Well thats because not all things that the dictionary considers a fire are is considered one in the law, infact many thinsg you and I would never
@prof5string consider "firearms" are included in the list. Please tell me why a handgun, shotgun, many differnt types of SMG's and rifels are not considered "firearms" under the law. It is rediculous to think that the law is dictated by the definitions used in everyday life, especially when they define the words for us RIGHT IN THE CODE.
@prof5string what you fail to realize is that the law is read in the light of the constituiton, and the constitution did not allow for a tax on the income of the people of this counrty. This link clearly shows taht the word is to be used in its constitutional sence, not its everyday use. 3w(dot)takelifeback(dot)com(slash)irwin(slash)incomedef(slash)1939(-)1954B(dot)gif
@polevaultrockstr Garbage. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting an income tax. Such a tax was legal both before and after the 16th Amendment.
Irwin Schiff is a three-time-loser of a con artist whose theories are 100% crap and have been consistently rejected by the courts. And for God's sake, learn to spell.
@prof5string well that is the point. The constitution is about "enumerated powers" and the govt didn't have the authority to tax income before the 16th. IF the 16th was illegally ratified then they still don't. Never stopped them before though.
@SendARope The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax in 1881, decades before the 16th. If you're going to try and debate this, you need to learn some legal history. The Court has consistently held that Congress has always had the power to tax incomes under its taxing authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.
@llamabait Every few years these blabbering-dimwits try to raise this "no legal income tax requirement" argument, and every time they get shut down immediately in the courts. It's embarrassing.
They do these "man on the street" segments with people who can barely spell CAT, let alone find or read USC Title 26.
The "Income" tax, Title 26 (A Non-Postive law) works WHEN "Applied"Correctly.Applies to a very few, WHEN MADE LIABLE.Look into it for yourself.Dig deep,IGNORance IS the beast used against oneself......HR1207
I asked several attorneys, and they all replied with "yes there is a law" Some referred me to the IRS website, other attorneys referred me to the 13th amendment. And all told me "you go to jail if you don't pay taxes" Hm..it seems to be the best they can come up with. "they put us in jail when we refuse to pay". So what's the truth?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
FORGET LEGAL THIEF ARGUMENTS ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER. We need unity not legal arguing.
You can only legally be taxed on profits and gains.
If you go work 8 hours for Wal-Mart and they pay you $10.00 per hour, that means you earned $80 right?
Did you profit $80?
Did you gain $80?
The answer to both questions is NO. It was a equal trade that both parties agree to. You did not profit anything because you TRADED 8 hours of your time and energy for the $80. You will never get that 8 hours of your life back. How did you gain or profit anything?
Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
The word INCOME is not defined within the internal revenue code. Seems like it would be defined by the IRS since the tax is call the INCOME Tax
Income= The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments
Exchange= to give up (something) for something else; part with for some equivalent; change for another. to part with in return for some equivalent
What we call the "tax code" IS the tax law. It was signed into law by congress and had been revised several times and signed into law each time. It explicitly tells you how and by how much you are liable to pay the government in income tax.
It is the responsibility of the citizen to discover and know the law. Not the government's responsibility to go to great lengths to prove to a few objectors what is obviously the law.
The objectors have to find the law themselves, it's not hard.
So if you say its our job to find the laws then you would be okay with the government putting you in jail for breaking a "LAW". Then you ask to see the law you broke and they say "find it yourself".....you are okay with that? hummmm....
If it is so easy to find the law that requires the people to tax on income, why don't YOU put an end to all this mess and find it.
2. It's a law because it was SIGNED INTO LAW by congress. It's called a code for technical reasons. Cant you people understand that a code is a KIND of law?
3. I was not talking about being imprisoned, I was referring to being culpable when you break the law. All of our serious laws are obvious, so that scenario you imagined would never happen to a person who didn't know what he was doing. Tax protestors are very deliberate.
"This is made certain by the provisions of 7701(b) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code that The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 7701(b).
For purposes of this chapter, the term employee includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term employee also includes an officer of a corporation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If the law creates stealing or the corrupt interpretation of law permits stealing, RetSquid opinion is that people are subject to law that steals from them?
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author & source of law..while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists & acts. And the law is the definition & limitation of power.
You still did not answer any of the questions I asked. I'm not trying to be a jerk and obviously you do not have to answer any of my questions. If there is a law that requires a tax on income earned from labor I would like to see it and be told where to find it.
I looked at title 26 like you said. I still did not see where it says that the income tax is required.
I just bumped into the very begining of title 26 and it says. "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household" And then states the percentage based on various incomes.
Head of household is defined as every person who is not filing a joint income.
and, married couples liability is described right before that.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Sub-chapter A > PART I > § 1
No offense, but it doesn't sound like your read it.
I gave the example of being imprisoned because people have been put in prison for not paying income tax without being provided with the law that requiers them to pay income taxes.
But in court and on trial they are provided with ALL the materials necessary. In the cases I've read about where they claim "Oh I haven't been given the law" They're operating under the framework that Title 26 isn't law. Whereas it is.
Can you give a single example of someone not being given the law in court?
There IS a period where it's legal to imprison awaiting a court date. I agree with that law because there's usually good reason.
however in a since its about liability you signed a w4 saying they could withhold so they do. cancel the w4 ! the 1040 is also used to correct the error of the irs . read cracking the code.
The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between imposing a tax and creating a liability for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.
Am I to be a legal scholar or is the legislature and the executive not required to bring the LAW into conformity with the courts decisions? They have not done this therefore who is to blame when we fail to follow THE LAW? when the "law" they are referring to is from the bench...something most people couldn't understand without a PhD..and many smart people still don't understand it...Timothy Geitner anyone?
The assertion that the filing of an income tax return is voluntary is, likewise, frivolous. Title 26, United States Code, Section 6012(a)(1)(A), requires that every individual who earns a threshold level of income must file a tax return. Failure to file an income tax return subjects an individual to criminal penalty.
Not so much help, just bunch of misunderstandings and outright lies.
All individuals, freeborn and non freeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)
Am I to be a legal scholar or is the legislature and the executive not required to bring the LAW into conformity with the courts decisions? ANY DECISION not just the ones you used.
judicial ones. decisions from the bench. Ones that have the force of law but are not law. example Roe V Wade made abortion legal yet the laws in many states were not in compliance with that JUDICIAL decision so they were forced to change the law to bring it into conformity with R vs W.
No the law isn't in compliance. Where does it say that for me a "united states person" that I must pay taxes? If I am not a "united states person" then who is? If I'm a "person" then who is a "united states person" as outlined in THE LAW.
§ 7701. Definitions has many things defined most of which do not overlap. In other words I can only be one of them unless it says I can also be another...it doesn't
Does this apply to Canadians also? I did have a talk with my grandfather about income tax and asked him what is income tax, he told me the money you have to ay people.
I asked why he said its the law.
I then asked why and he said because and that I should just do as I'am told... I had another discusion with them about the chip being implanted in us and how the goverment is really fucking corrupted and they either changed the subject or called me an idiot and to stop talking so silly.
seems to me that a lot of "patriots" enjoy getting ass-raped by the government. not a good attitude. i can understand the purpose of the IRS if the money were allocated respectably, but these men are simply thug, criminal, mafioso-like bullies. and will continue to be so thanx to a bunch of sheep. (respectably useless eaters)
"i can understand the purpose of the IRS if the money were allocated respectably, but these men are simply thug, criminal, mafioso-like bullies. and will continue to be so thanx to a bunch of sheep. (respectably useless eaters)"
Don't foolishly bitch about the IRS, bitch to your Congressional representatives about their overspending. The employees of the IRS are simply doing the job charged them by Congress.
That is just the problem. They are not doing their job. I called and spent over an hour on the phone getting bounced around and then hung up on. I called to get a simple answer to section 3402 "wages withheld at the source" Employee is clearly defined and is not me. When I pushed the issue they hung up. When I pushed my congressman and senator I was given a large packet of "tax protestor" faq's. I was not protesting the tax just the withholding. SHOW ME THE LAW!
James Binge and Terrence Bentivegna were enjoined from selling fraudulent tax schemes involving the frivolous Section 861 argument
—that U.S. citizens are not required to pay taxes on the income they receive inside the United States.
The court barred them from preparing tax returns and from representing customers before the IRS. The two men had engaged in fraudulent conduct and that they knew or had reason to know that their statements to customers about the tax schemes were false.
What I find sickening is that NO argument against the income tax stands up. Yet EVERY argument in favor of it does. This STINKS of government corruption and judicial misconduct. If they say I MUST pay then I say SHOW ME THE LAW. not the "law" that says "IF THIS THEN THAT" but the law that says "YOU MUST PAY PERIOD END OF STORY!!!"...There isn't one! Instead it is just more of the same BS PAY UP SUCKER! Yet the bankers continue to rape our nation and we get the bill!
This proves that there is too many sheep in the WORLD to stop them. They are in control because the constantly dumb down society and continually keep them busy with meaningsless shit such as football and paris hilton... This is why we are screwed....
Title 26 USC subtitle A section 1461, withholding of tax on non resident aliens and foreign corporations. This is the law. Understand that the income tax is an "excise" tax on an economic activity that is a privileged activity and not the mere exercise of a natural human right to pursue the common needs of life through labor.
The movie "Matrix' should teach you to always question your perception of reality. It is unnatural to give things away without having a reason. So, your reason is one of three choices(1) there is a law (2) there is no law and you think that government is doing a great job and deserves you hard earned money (3) there is no law and the government will send thugs to hurt you if you don't payup! Now, which is it? All we are saying is give truth a chance!
Watch the Google video (movie) "Freedom to Fascism"
The IRS isn't a federal agency. It's a private agency. They are a bunch of thugs that intimidate and bully Americans into paying "taxes". The "government" isn't doing it's job of oversight and just lets them do it. Hmm
The IRS is only thieves and Americans are so scared and dumb that they don't question whether it is lawful.
Get involved. Find out what the IRS really is. You'll be surprised. We should all stand up and take back our country.
What a waste of time trying to get someone to see that the IRS is a fraud. I have not read any of the tax protest or "honesty" movement arguements. I have read the LAW and find NO law that makes me liable for the tax. Yet I still pay because of big guys with guns. If the court cases that uphold the IRS were held to be true then they must but never have brought the law into conformity with the decisions. They didn't so there isn't.
faileditsdrugtest has obviously failed to read the SCOTUS opinions that make it clear that the income tax on wages is 'the most basic element' of the income tax.
That's why 'personal services' (wages, salaries) is in the number 1 position in section 61 when the elements of gross income are listed.
@averageworkinggal if you read the regulations as they pertain to section 61 you would see that it is of any source derived, unless excluded by law. This also means unless excluded by the constitution, as EVERY law is to be read in light of it. IF you look though section 61 where these sources are named and you get a list. The regulations on 1.861-8 that pertain to section 61state "...a class of income may included excluded income." In simpler terms not everything on the list is always
@averageworkinggal taxable. Your citation of "personal services" only apply to "non-resident aliens and citizens entitled to the benefits of section 262. If you look at section 262 it applies to those who receive most of their income from federal possessions, not the average citizen.
Also, if the IRS detects that an employee has filed a fraudulent W4, such as claiming exempt status when they are clearly being paid a salary, the IRS has the authority from Congress to instruct the employer to withhold.
If an idiot employee wants to play stupid games with his W4, the employer certainly has just cause to terminate at will.
one should not sighn a w-4 and mark exempt that is not what one does . one cancells the w-4 alltogether. and if an employeer wants to terminate becouse one cancells his w-4 the employee will have a civil case and the irs wont help the buisness. its in the code friend.
Filing a weird w-4 with one's employer, does nothing to protect an individual from their tax obligation.
faileditsdrugtest not only is ignorant of tax law, but it even exceeds the lunacy of your typical tax denier by showing complete ignorance of the Employment-at-Will employment law doctrine.
The employer can fire at will for good reason, no reason or bad reason except in cases of violation of law, which does not including W-4 fraud.
"if an employeer wants to terminate becouse one cancells his w-4 the employee will have a civil case and the irs wont help the buisness. its in the code friend."
WHERE in the code? While you're at it, do a little research on "at will" employment.
You can find the law by googling on 'tax protester arguments' and finding that this argument is one of the oldest and worst arguments the tax deniers use and they've managed to fool some of the foolish into spending time in Club Fed.
Well you should actually try reading the entire code. Read the definitions. Don't take things at face value and by what the "publications" which are not law. I have read the code. USC title 26 and can't find any law that says I am required to pay taxes. Do I? Hell yeah. I don't want them kicking my door down. But I find no law that makes me liable to pay a tax or to Violate my 5th amendment rights when I file. If government is so sure then why didn't they answer the WTP foundations petition?
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
Section 6072 provides the familiar April 15th statutory time basis: "[R]eturns made on the basis of the calendar year shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year."
however the code says that if you are liable for the tax one is expected to pay. you are only liable becouse you sighned a w4 . socancell the w-4 with a w4-T and have your employer stop withholding . then file a 1040 and correct it. this show me the law stuff wont help you. ed and elain we fucken fools who could have stayed out of jail just like snipes and you better learn too.
taxdenierfraudexposed exposes its willfulness to violate federal tax laws with that argument.
It should use that in its tax evasion trial to ensure a long stay in Club Fed.
Committing tax fraud with a fraudulent W4 does nothing to protect the individual from owing the tax imposed by federal law and the additional penalties.
NOT what is a fruadulent w-4 ? you have a w-4 withholding agreement if you cancell the agreement as stted in the code printed right there on the dam form then therer is nothing for them to hold over your head.
Wrong. The employer is mandatd by law to withhold federal income tax on its employees. If you fail to file a W4 with your employer to reduce withholding, they will withhold the maximum amount.
wrong the buisness is conducting wrongfully as a federal employeer in the first place notice you keep saying FEDERAL income from its nonfederal employees which they are not becouse any a federal worker is a employee
"faileditsdrugtest is obviously bonkerz, showing a complete lack of grasp of the tax laws."
Translated: passyourdrugtest is a typical tax protestor moron who simply recycles unverifiable nonsense he dredges up from various conspiracy theorist websites and videos. He doesn't even understand the basic underlying concepts of the Constitution or our mode of government but prances about acting as if he will be the first nominee to fill the next SCOTUS vacancy.
pay the tax if one is liable you have failed to prove liability . Needless to say, and despite 3402(p)(3)(B), treating payments as though they were "wages" paid to an "employee" does not transform them into "income", if they are actually paid to a private-sector worker.
section 3402.(p)(3)(B)
if you never sighn a w-4 then HOW would you have withholdings?
faileditsdrugtest has added illiteracy to its already proven mental delusions. I already explained withholding.
The employer is mandated by law to withhold and does withhold whether you file a W-4 or not.
You file a W-4, at your option, to claim additional tax exemptions that could reduce your estimted tax liability thus requiring a smaller withholding amount to pay the tax.
Yet another kook that thinks wages are only income if they are paid to a civil servant.
Anyone can google on 'tax protester arguments' and see that this tax denier notion is nonsense (aka Frivolous).
The SCOTUS made it clear in Glenshaw Glass that income are all assessions to wealth (such as wages or salary), fully realized (paid to the individual) which the individual has complete dominion over.
The SCOTUS did not say 'only in the case of civil servant government employees' and never will.
"wages are only income if they are paid to a civil servant." ? wages are not income they are the pay to a federal worker. where does it say that a non federal worker earns wages?
"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves." United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
Quoting a few random codes in the "law" is not a good synopsis. There is no law but just a bunch of vague codes that never specifically state WHO is a taxpayer and WHAT is taxable. You see a lot of this deception by design in the legalese of the code. Words like "individual" "taxpayer" "resident" "Citizen" "united states" but they lack the definitions that are required of such terms to make the law compliant. THERE IS NO LAW! SHOW ME THE LAW! FREE ED AND ELAINE BROWN!!!
I just realized that kaysandesses has already said this. Sorry. I just think that at the very minimum, this video just goes to show how ignorant people are to what they are legally obligated to do and not obligated to do. I know I am, too much time to read it all, not that I haven't tried.
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE Subtitle A--Income Taxes CHAPTER 1--NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES Subchapter A--Determination of Tax Liability PART I--TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
(b) Heads of households
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
I wasn't asked if the law should be legal. I was asked if there is a law. I have provided that law. If you want me to talk about the 16th I will, but it won't matter because until I do as much research as these tax protesters I will not be taken as a valid source, neither will any site I quote. You've given me a dead end, as people who argue the 16th wasn't ratified claim to have the orig. documents from the ratification from different states. I do not have the financial backing to counter this.
Benson proved nothing and the government has obtained injunctions against his fraud.
The income tax on wages and salaries was declared constitutional by the SCOTUS 20 years earlier in the Pollock case.
If there was no 16th Amendment, Congress can go right on imposing the income tax on wages and salaries. Royalties, rents and dividends might be arguable, but not wages and salaries.
Too bad, tax deniers.
The income tax on wages and salaries is THE LAW THAT ALWAYS WAS.
it may be a violation of the fifth if you let it. the person submitting the form is the final word,as for 26USC 1, that refers to "income" There is no personal liability for John Doe specified in the law.IF JOHN MEETS THE FOREGOING QUALIFICATIONS, HE IS OBLIGED TO DO SEVERAL THINGS, THE CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH IS THE CREATION OF A PERSONAL LIABILITY.allegations on an "information return"(W-2,1099)DECLARING that someone has received more than the exemption amount of "income" WILL BE PRESUMED TRUE
the w2 claiming i made federal pay or WAGES is a lie so i correct it thus asserting my rights...the liability DOES NOT EXHIST UNTIL SOMEONE CREATS IT. IF THE LIABILITY EXHIST AND IS TRUE , SO IT IS , IF NOT IT NEEDS TO BE RESPONDED TO .....
"Duh. CtC is a quick way to land in the clink. Just ask the author.",.. i converse with him all the time and hes not in jail. whats your point. i have not paid federal income taxes in years becouse im not liable as ive proven to the service
"i converse with him all the time and hes not in jail. whats your point."
I didn't intend to imply HE was in jail. Did you ask him about how he lost his federal case? Did he also tell you his appeal to the SC was denied? Do you know what that means? It means he's full of bullshit and you'd be wise to ignore his nonsense.
"becouse im not liable as ive proven to the service"
There is a tax imposed on "income" in excess of the current exemption amount. What "income" is, and whether or not one actually received any, is irrelevant to this fact.There IS something called "income" which IS taxed(The Revenue Act of 1938. The rates, and various other aspects of the tax, have periodically been modified by individual enactments since this original enactment,the product of which are currently reflected in Sections 1, 61, 63, 6001, 6011(a),6012(a)and 6065 of IRC of 1986).SEC.11
You're plagiarizing your posts and I've found the source. You yap on and on about how income tax is illegal and you don't even know the arguments and have to copy someone else's material.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED: We can all see now who is the fraud here: you.
im not claiming to be reciting "material" of mine rather points of fact . and when did I EVER SAY INCOME TAX IS ILLEGAL? now your acting like IRS employyees ive delt with who lie and put words in place for others. now I AM BEGINING TO BELIEVE YOU ARE A IRS MOLE> as for the sourse you "DISCOVERED" i am always promoting and reading from "CRACKING THE CODE" and LOSTHORIZONS DOT FUCKING COM,.. BITCH
HAHAHA all you morons dredge that up when you're beat You haven't managed to beat anyone here kandyassmoron thus the reasons for your lashing out at innocent people here and your ignoring them when they start schooling you on legal facts backed up by the irs's own laws. It's not their fault you have problems interpreting code properly. I bet you rode the short bus didn't you, in fact I bet you drive that same short bus today.
freiken sheep. i only dont pay i dont let them take it..the w4 you sighn and put youe ss on is a witholding AGREEMENT. so cancell it, now THAT should be common sense
Code is law as set down in Art. 1, Sec. 7 of the Constitution. The 16th amendment was ratified, making it law. Furthermore, if you don't like how your tax money is being spent tell your representatives in Congress. The true path to lowering taxes is through fiscal responsibility in Congress. Spreading mistruths about the legality of income tax accomplishes nothing.
Working at the IRSS must be nice. There is no law. The 2nd amendment tells me I have rights regarding guns yet there are "Laws" that govern that "Right" the same is true of amnd 16. It tells the govt that they can tax but they must pass laws that make those taxes something that can be enforced. Title 26irc contains no law requiring the average american to pay tax on their income. How is filing an income tax return not a violation of the 5th amendment?
gaysadness the 16th didnt change anything . the truth about . the FEDERAL INCOME TAX ..is just that , its for FEDERAL WORKERS. if you file a w4 you are liable to file a 1040 to voluntary comply and attest to the truthfullnes or you correct it.if the w2 is incorrect in that one did not earn federal WAGES then one does not claim FEDERAL WAGES ON THE RETURN one has to correct the w2
Sixteenth Amendment WASN'T a transformational event at all.the Sixteenth Amendment accomplished nothing more dramatic than closing a minor loophole regarding the application of the already 51-year-old "income" tax to the dividends derived from personally-owned stock "discovered" by the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, on the basis of which the court struck down ten sections of the 1894 Revenue Act.
what is the legal definition of us citizen? if you are not an us citizen than you don't owe the the tax of the corp us.
animefan2k9 3 months ago
Humans= DUMB! Common sense like Hitler killing the Jews , what a dumb bitch these people are the finished product of "our accredited educational institutions" give an effin break !
sickasso72 1 year ago
Humans= DUMB!
sickasso72 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is ’he law: Title 26
Section 1, imposes the tax
Section 61 defines Gross income
Section 63 defines Taxable income.
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return
zentner18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On June 4, 1963, JFK signed Executive Order No. 11110. With this Order JFK was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of NY out of business. 11110 gave the Treasury the power to issue silver certificates. If enough silver certificates circulated they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. Perhaps JFK's assassination was a warning to future presidents who try to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Fed's control over the creation of money. copy and repost 3X
PeaceIsRad 1 year ago
The U.S Supreme Court has ruled that the taxing limitation in Art.1, sec.2, clause 3; and Art. 1, Sec. 9
Clause 4 of the constitution prohibiting the Fed. Gov. from imposing ANY tax directly ON the people, are still in effect. And that the 16th Amend. did NOT nullify those limitations nor authorize any direct tax ON the people.
asicit2b 1 year ago 4
It is title 26 that keeps the CORPORATION in check.There is no law that requires the average american worker in the private sector to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor.
asicit2b 2 years ago
The "title"of a section is not law,and that the WORDING of the body of the statute ONLY is the law.Onthe "taxable" "income" NOT on the individual.
asicit2b 2 years ago
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1 it's as clear as day people. I debunked this myth so quick it's not even funny
collapseofthedollar 2 years ago
The Internal Revenue Code is the law passed by congress. You are to be taxed on all taxable income. It even defines what's taxable and what's not. You're either ignorant or a liar.
Ever heard of the Internal Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code? Apparently not. This is the law concerning taxes.
The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1
llamabait 2 years ago
Section 3402 pertaining to wages taken at the source. Definitions: "an employee is an officer of a corporation or an official of the government"
So where is the law that says they can take money from my check? Since that is a lie what other lies might we find in the internal revenue code?
SendARope 2 years ago 4
The law says you are to be taxed on taxable income. Your check is taxable income. How is that a lie? I don't understand your argument.
Again, the internal revenue code says your check is taxable. The IRC is law. There is a law. Whether or not you like that law or think it is unlawful, it is still the present law in the country and it's not going to change anytime soon. Sorry.
llamabait 2 years ago
Nice try. You want me to debate you fine. However, you didn't answer my question. Do that and we can continue.
SendARope 2 years ago 2
@SendARope You're an idiot.. plain and simple. USC Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, § 1. Clearly states exactly what income is taxable, and whom is responsible to pay it. It's law, passed by Congress, available for all to read on the web.
silvermediastudio 5 months ago
@llamabait the law states taxabe INCOME. The word income is defined as an annual tax levied by the Federal government, most states, and some local governments, on an individual's or corporation's net profit. When working an 8 hour day you have NO net profit as you just made a fair trade of your time for money. The Supreme Court has numerous times ruled that your hourly wage is NOT income and is NOT tax able by law. Show me the part of the code that makes my energy in my body a good that is
polevaultrockstr 1 year ago
@polevaultrockstr The Supreme Court has never ruled that hourly wages aren't income. NEVER. If you think it has, post a citation.
Section 61(a)(1) of the Code makes your wages included in gross income. Your "foreign commerce" argument is a rehash of the bogus "Section 861" argument that has been consistently rejected by the courts and that hasn't a shred of legal support. It's so worthless that its chief proponent didn't even reiase it at his own tax evasion trial.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string 61 (a)(1) "Normal" taxes and Surtaxes-Computation of "TAXABLE"
"income" Definations blaw,blaw And YOU posted makes YOUR "wages" included
in "gross income." Do the intrinsic decomposition of the code. What is "NORMAL"
taxes ? do you know ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@llamabait worth money and making me a "profit." If you go and look at the "sources" in the law book it names only things that deal with foreign commerce and non resident aliens. The law clearly defines everything that is taxable, even stating that some of those thing state might NOT be taxable under the constitution, but it leaves out any kind of reference to the income of legal residents of the US that do not partake in foreign commerce. It is because we are not taxable!!!!
polevaultrockstr 1 year ago
@SendARope Section 3402 doesn't say that. It says an officer of a corp or a government official is included in the definition, but in accordance with Section 7701(c), that doesn't mean that all other employed persons aren't included as well.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string YES IT DOES!!!!! Why have a law that clearly states who is taxable, but just throw everyone else in becasue you think they should be? You cannot read tax law and assume that you understand the vocabulary as it is specific to the statues they define. When a law list the applicable situations, it is to be assumed that all other situations are not liable under THAT specific law. So if you can point me to the section that does discuss all of us other employed persons I would love to
polevaultrockstr 1 year ago
@polevaultrockstr Read Section 7701(c) of the Code, which says that when "includes" is used in a definition, you don't exclude other things that are otherwise included in the defined term. In the case of "employee", the inclusion of corp officers & govt officials doesn't mean it excludes people otherwise included in the normal meaning of "employee". Courts have consistently rejected the argument that "includes" as used in 3402 is restrictive; in fact, one court called the argument "inane".
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string why don't you read section 5841 that requires the Secretary of the Treasury to keep a record of ALL firearms in the united states. Now accoding to you, the Secretary of the Treasury is breaking the law, as there is no such registry. And why would they even bother to define "firearms," conisidereing well all know what a gun is right? Well thats because not all things that the dictionary considers a fire are is considered one in the law, infact many thinsg you and I would never
polevaultrockstr 1 year ago
@prof5string consider "firearms" are included in the list. Please tell me why a handgun, shotgun, many differnt types of SMG's and rifels are not considered "firearms" under the law. It is rediculous to think that the law is dictated by the definitions used in everyday life, especially when they define the words for us RIGHT IN THE CODE.
polevaultrockstr 1 year ago
@prof5string what you fail to realize is that the law is read in the light of the constituiton, and the constitution did not allow for a tax on the income of the people of this counrty. This link clearly shows taht the word is to be used in its constitutional sence, not its everyday use. 3w(dot)takelifeback(dot)com(slash)irwin(slash)incomedef(slash)1939(-)1954B(dot)gif
polevaultrockstr 1 year ago
@polevaultrockstr Garbage. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting an income tax. Such a tax was legal both before and after the 16th Amendment.
Irwin Schiff is a three-time-loser of a con artist whose theories are 100% crap and have been consistently rejected by the courts. And for God's sake, learn to spell.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string well that is the point. The constitution is about "enumerated powers" and the govt didn't have the authority to tax income before the 16th. IF the 16th was illegally ratified then they still don't. Never stopped them before though.
SendARope 1 year ago 2
@SendARope The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax in 1881, decades before the 16th. If you're going to try and debate this, you need to learn some legal history. The Court has consistently held that Congress has always had the power to tax incomes under its taxing authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string read it.
polevaultrockstr 1 year ago
@llamabait Every few years these blabbering-dimwits try to raise this "no legal income tax requirement" argument, and every time they get shut down immediately in the courts. It's embarrassing.
They do these "man on the street" segments with people who can barely spell CAT, let alone find or read USC Title 26.
silvermediastudio 5 months ago
So sad that Americans are still asleep and don't have a clue.....
MsSongbird48 2 years ago 5
its time to rise up and fight pick up ur guns and fight if we kill mthem they will stop
sparky41684 2 years ago
The "Income" tax, Title 26 (A Non-Postive law) works WHEN "Applied"Correctly.Applies to a very few, WHEN MADE LIABLE.Look into it for yourself.Dig deep,IGNORance IS the beast used against oneself......HR1207
asicit2 2 years ago
I asked several attorneys, and they all replied with "yes there is a law" Some referred me to the IRS website, other attorneys referred me to the 13th amendment. And all told me "you go to jail if you don't pay taxes" Hm..it seems to be the best they can come up with. "they put us in jail when we refuse to pay". So what's the truth?
commonsense2008 2 years ago
so.. do i have to pay income tax or not?
sniped101 2 years ago
Retsquid is an IRS stooge. Ignore him.
tomeb777 2 years ago
I figured so I have been.
SendARope 2 years ago
Peace
tomeb777 2 years ago
Isn't the 16th amendment used to justify the income tax?
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What kind of freedom is that which requires free people to legally pay for anothers dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, wealth building, failures bailouts & other legal mischief when I cannot force my neighbor to pay for my dreams, schemes...?
HOW CAN THERE BE LAW OR COURTS OF LAW THAT PERMITS LEGAL STEALING & LEGAL SLAVERY?
FORGET LEGAL THIEF ARGUMENTS ITS TIME TO BAND TOGETHER. We need unity not legal arguing.
CAMPAIGNforLIBERTY*COM
RESTOREtheREPUBLIC*COM
TRUTHATTACK*ORG
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Corporate taxes are perfectly legal and constitutional.
Example:
A company buys $10 worth of steel
Pays a welder/fabricator $20 to make a table out of the steel
Pays $30 in other expenses in order to sell the table.
It cost the company $60 to produce the table.
The company sells the table for $100.00
The company makes a PROFIT or GAIN of $40
stainlessTT 2 years ago
You can only legally be taxed on profits and gains.
If you go work 8 hours for Wal-Mart and they pay you $10.00 per hour, that means you earned $80 right?
Did you profit $80?
Did you gain $80?
The answer to both questions is NO. It was a equal trade that both parties agree to. You did not profit anything because you TRADED 8 hours of your time and energy for the $80. You will never get that 8 hours of your life back. How did you gain or profit anything?
stainlessTT 2 years ago 8
Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
RetSquid 2 years ago
@stainlessTT You make a solid point there.
1PHILLWHITE 1 year ago
The word INCOME is not defined within the internal revenue code. Seems like it would be defined by the IRS since the tax is call the INCOME Tax
Income= The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments
Exchange= to give up (something) for something else; part with for some equivalent; change for another. to part with in return for some equivalent
stainlessTT 2 years ago
It IS defined as the GROSS income in code 61 of the IRS, Title 26.
So anything you receive can be counted, before exemptions and credits.
law . cornell . edu/uscode/26/61.html
paulmarko 2 years ago
What we call the "tax code" IS the tax law. It was signed into law by congress and had been revised several times and signed into law each time. It explicitly tells you how and by how much you are liable to pay the government in income tax.
It is the responsibility of the citizen to discover and know the law. Not the government's responsibility to go to great lengths to prove to a few objectors what is obviously the law.
The objectors have to find the law themselves, it's not hard.
paulmarko 2 years ago
Arguing with tax protesters is like playing whack-a-mole. As soon as you have slammed down one crazy argument, another one pops its head up.
RetSquid 2 years ago
Yeah. You're probably right. I really hate people who hang on to their hypothesis just because it's appealing.
paulmarko 2 years ago
Hey Paulmarko,
What is the definiton of "tax code"?
How is "tax code" a law?
So if you say its our job to find the laws then you would be okay with the government putting you in jail for breaking a "LAW". Then you ask to see the law you broke and they say "find it yourself".....you are okay with that? hummmm....
If it is so easy to find the law that requires the people to tax on income, why don't YOU put an end to all this mess and find it.
stainlessTT 2 years ago
1. Title 26 is the tax code.
2. It's a law because it was SIGNED INTO LAW by congress. It's called a code for technical reasons. Cant you people understand that a code is a KIND of law?
3. I was not talking about being imprisoned, I was referring to being culpable when you break the law. All of our serious laws are obvious, so that scenario you imagined would never happen to a person who didn't know what he was doing. Tax protestors are very deliberate.
To find the law, google "title 26"
paulmarko 2 years ago
I've read t26. Still having trouble finding the law that requires the average american to pay income tax. But lets forget that for a second.
How about the law that requires an employee to have taxes taken from his wages at the source...What law is that, specifically?
SendARope 2 years ago
TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > § 3402. Income tax collected at source
(a) Requirement of withholding
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax...
RetSquid 2 years ago
read the definitions you troll!!!
SendARope 2 years ago
Any definitions in particular?
"In interpreting the meaning of the words in a revenue Act, we look to the 'ordinary, everyday senses' of the words."
Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168, 174 (1993)
RetSquid 2 years ago
you mean the ordinary sense of the words "an official of the the government or an officer of a corporation"? Because that is how employee is defined.
SendARope 2 years ago
"This is made certain by the provisions of 7701(b) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code that The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 7701(b).
Sims v. United States
RetSquid 2 years ago
Employee: An individual who provides labor to a company or another person.
RetSquid 2 years ago
so now your making up your own definitions? Because the definitions for sect 3402 are quite different than that.
SendARope 2 years ago
I found no definition of 'employee' in 3402.
Are you looking at the right laws?
I gave you the definition that the courts say is the correct one (Commissioner v. Soliman).
RetSquid 2 years ago
t26 ch24 § 3401. Definitions:
...
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term employee includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term employee also includes an officer of a corporation.
SendARope 2 years ago
Well citing the correct section would be a help!
'Includes' does not mean that it excludes others, that would be 'only'.
RetSquid 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If the law creates stealing or the corrupt interpretation of law permits stealing, RetSquid opinion is that people are subject to law that steals from them?
Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author & source of law..while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists & acts. And the law is the definition & limitation of power.
ifreemantoo 2 years ago
Hi Paulmarko,
You still did not answer any of the questions I asked. I'm not trying to be a jerk and obviously you do not have to answer any of my questions. If there is a law that requires a tax on income earned from labor I would like to see it and be told where to find it.
I looked at title 26 like you said. I still did not see where it says that the income tax is required.
How is a code a law?
stainlessTT 2 years ago
I just bumped into the very begining of title 26 and it says. "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household" And then states the percentage based on various incomes.
Head of household is defined as every person who is not filing a joint income.
and, married couples liability is described right before that.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Sub-chapter A > PART I > § 1
No offense, but it doesn't sound like your read it.
paulmarko 2 years ago
I gave the example of being imprisoned because people have been put in prison for not paying income tax without being provided with the law that requiers them to pay income taxes.
stainlessTT 2 years ago
But in court and on trial they are provided with ALL the materials necessary. In the cases I've read about where they claim "Oh I haven't been given the law" They're operating under the framework that Title 26 isn't law. Whereas it is.
Can you give a single example of someone not being given the law in court?
There IS a period where it's legal to imprison awaiting a court date. I agree with that law because there's usually good reason.
paulmarko 2 years ago
however in a since its about liability you signed a w4 saying they could withhold so they do. cancel the w4 ! the 1040 is also used to correct the error of the irs . read cracking the code.
listen to republicbroadcasting.[org
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between imposing a tax and creating a liability for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.
Porcaro v. United States
RetSquid 2 years ago
Am I to be a legal scholar or is the legislature and the executive not required to bring the LAW into conformity with the courts decisions? They have not done this therefore who is to blame when we fail to follow THE LAW? when the "law" they are referring to is from the bench...something most people couldn't understand without a PhD..and many smart people still don't understand it...Timothy Geitner anyone?
SendARope 2 years ago
Which court decision are you talking about?
The one I just quoted or this one:
The assertion that the filing of an income tax return is voluntary is, likewise, frivolous. Title 26, United States Code, Section 6012(a)(1)(A), requires that every individual who earns a threshold level of income must file a tax return. Failure to file an income tax return subjects an individual to criminal penalty.
United States v. Hartman
RetSquid 2 years ago
.losthorizons[.com/Intro.pdf
read this maybe it will help you
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
Not so much help, just bunch of misunderstandings and outright lies.
All individuals, freeborn and non freeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)
RetSquid 2 years ago
You didn't answer my question above. :
Am I to be a legal scholar or is the legislature and the executive not required to bring the LAW into conformity with the courts decisions? ANY DECISION not just the ones you used.
SendARope 2 years ago
What decisions are you talking about?
RetSquid 2 years ago
judicial ones. decisions from the bench. Ones that have the force of law but are not law. example Roe V Wade made abortion legal yet the laws in many states were not in compliance with that JUDICIAL decision so they were forced to change the law to bring it into conformity with R vs W.
SendARope 2 years ago
And how does this help your case that 'there is no law'?
Tax laws are in compliance with judicial rulings.
RetSquid 2 years ago
No the law isn't in compliance. Where does it say that for me a "united states person" that I must pay taxes? If I am not a "united states person" then who is? If I'm a "person" then who is a "united states person" as outlined in THE LAW.
§ 7701. Definitions has many things defined most of which do not overlap. In other words I can only be one of them unless it says I can also be another...it doesn't
SendARope 2 years ago
If you are an individual, you fit the definition, you may also be a United States Person.
You can fit more than one of those definitions, you assume that you can only fit one.
RetSquid 2 years ago
According the the definitions of section 6012
Am I a:
(1) Person
The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
or a:
(30) United States person
The term United States person means—
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
If I am not the latter then who is?
SendARope 2 years ago
I don't think you are looking at the right section 6012...
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A > PART II > Subpart B > § 6012. Persons required to make returns of income (a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...
This is current as of Tuesday, March 3, 2009
RetSquid 2 years ago
There you go again with more deflection:
§ 7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this title, (That would be TITLE 26 ) where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
SendARope 2 years ago
Does this apply to Canadians also? I did have a talk with my grandfather about income tax and asked him what is income tax, he told me the money you have to ay people.
I asked why he said its the law.
I then asked why and he said because and that I should just do as I'am told... I had another discusion with them about the chip being implanted in us and how the goverment is really fucking corrupted and they either changed the subject or called me an idiot and to stop talking so silly.
kylethecrackhead06 3 years ago 2
seems to me that a lot of "patriots" enjoy getting ass-raped by the government. not a good attitude. i can understand the purpose of the IRS if the money were allocated respectably, but these men are simply thug, criminal, mafioso-like bullies. and will continue to be so thanx to a bunch of sheep. (respectably useless eaters)
queenwinterkat 3 years ago
"i can understand the purpose of the IRS if the money were allocated respectably, but these men are simply thug, criminal, mafioso-like bullies. and will continue to be so thanx to a bunch of sheep. (respectably useless eaters)"
Don't foolishly bitch about the IRS, bitch to your Congressional representatives about their overspending. The employees of the IRS are simply doing the job charged them by Congress.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
That is just the problem. They are not doing their job. I called and spent over an hour on the phone getting bounced around and then hung up on. I called to get a simple answer to section 3402 "wages withheld at the source" Employee is clearly defined and is not me. When I pushed the issue they hung up. When I pushed my congressman and senator I was given a large packet of "tax protestor" faq's. I was not protesting the tax just the withholding. SHOW ME THE LAW!
SendARope 3 years ago
James Binge and Terrence Bentivegna were enjoined from selling fraudulent tax schemes involving the frivolous Section 861 argument
—that U.S. citizens are not required to pay taxes on the income they receive inside the United States.
The court barred them from preparing tax returns and from representing customers before the IRS. The two men had engaged in fraudulent conduct and that they knew or had reason to know that their statements to customers about the tax schemes were false.
HomeBoyCharlotte 3 years ago
What I find sickening is that NO argument against the income tax stands up. Yet EVERY argument in favor of it does. This STINKS of government corruption and judicial misconduct. If they say I MUST pay then I say SHOW ME THE LAW. not the "law" that says "IF THIS THEN THAT" but the law that says "YOU MUST PAY PERIOD END OF STORY!!!"...There isn't one! Instead it is just more of the same BS PAY UP SUCKER! Yet the bankers continue to rape our nation and we get the bill!
SendARope 3 years ago
Some arguements do stand up.
There is a case where the Judge would not let the defendant submit evidence to defend himself reguarding the Tax System.
The jury had NO CHOICE but to find the defendant INNOCENT of all charges.
It is a video on here of an former tax collector. No, it's not Joe Bannister, is another older gentleman..
Again, some arguements are settled in court, we can win. But dont trust lawyers, Their duty is first to the courts
HomeBoyCharlotte 3 years ago
There is NO LAW -- US Lawyer Not Guilty of Tax Evasion
Tom Cryer, an lawyer from Shreveport, Louisiana. Its an interesting relevant video you may find informative about actual trials over taxes
HomeBoyCharlotte 3 years ago
Frederick Bastiat called it 'legal plunder'.
ifreemantoo 3 years ago
So here it is: Title 26
Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
RetSquid 3 years ago
Gave you a negative you stupid fucking cunt. Nice try though. Hahaha, just another sheep you are.
Anothercoilgun 2 years ago
Sorry, I can't fix your stupidity, only your ignorance.
RetSquid 2 years ago
This proves that there is too many sheep in the WORLD to stop them. They are in control because the constantly dumb down society and continually keep them busy with meaningsless shit such as football and paris hilton... This is why we are screwed....
maberry21 3 years ago
Damn, I totally agree.!!!
Anothercoilgun 2 years ago
Title 26 USC subtitle A section 1461, withholding of tax on non resident aliens and foreign corporations. This is the law. Understand that the income tax is an "excise" tax on an economic activity that is a privileged activity and not the mere exercise of a natural human right to pursue the common needs of life through labor.
almartin77 3 years ago
So where is the law?
PNWScout2 3 years ago
The movie "Matrix' should teach you to always question your perception of reality. It is unnatural to give things away without having a reason. So, your reason is one of three choices(1) there is a law (2) there is no law and you think that government is doing a great job and deserves you hard earned money (3) there is no law and the government will send thugs to hurt you if you don't payup! Now, which is it? All we are saying is give truth a chance!
jimpattersonjim 3 years ago
Yeah I herd of this. But lol if you decided to not pay they'll have like a but load of FBI agents taking you down while your taking a shit
nemis17 3 years ago
Watch the Google video (movie) "Freedom to Fascism"
The IRS isn't a federal agency. It's a private agency. They are a bunch of thugs that intimidate and bully Americans into paying "taxes". The "government" isn't doing it's job of oversight and just lets them do it. Hmm
The IRS is only thieves and Americans are so scared and dumb that they don't question whether it is lawful.
Get involved. Find out what the IRS really is. You'll be surprised. We should all stand up and take back our country.
MsJulieCarol 3 years ago
Welcome, Kool-Aid chugger.
bosunbilly 3 years ago
good job go to the big citys...like we do!!
freeamerica365 3 years ago
Oh goodie another CPA/Accountant/IRS Defender.
What a waste of time trying to get someone to see that the IRS is a fraud. I have not read any of the tax protest or "honesty" movement arguements. I have read the LAW and find NO law that makes me liable for the tax. Yet I still pay because of big guys with guns. If the court cases that uphold the IRS were held to be true then they must but never have brought the law into conformity with the decisions. They didn't so there isn't.
SendARope 3 years ago
Right on. You might as well speak to brick wall cause these people will never see the truth.
verminslayer 3 years ago
And what a waste of time trying to convince a Kool-Aid drinker (you) that the IRS and the income tax is completely legal and constitutional.
bosunbilly 3 years ago 2
"I have read the LAW and find NO law that makes me liable for the tax. "
You must not have read very much of the "law". Here's your homework: Read Title 26 of the U.S. Code.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
isnt that the old apportioned vs unapportioned argument?
nokilt1 3 years ago
"isnt that the old apportioned vs unapportioned argument? "
I think it's mainly the old "I don't know squat about income tax except what I saw on a TP video".
You may already be aware that the 16th amendment turfed the whole apportionment argument decades ago. Weird that the TP's can't figure that out.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
i really dont know that much about it....only what i saw on zeitgeist that i already found to be disinformation.....
nokilt1 3 years ago
how so????? there is no law westly snipes has not paid in years and hes not in jail. there is no law its the biggest scam in USA history.
Theateam911 3 years ago
like i said...i dont know much about it
i read some of the tax law and its pretty confusing
as per zeitgeist...some of what they said(some)is easily refutable by reading the laws
now i dont know about snipes, but i do know a couple from new hampshire are in jail for not paying taxes
and they were trying the 'just show me the law' defense
nokilt1 3 years ago
furthermore the sixteenth amendment states "..from whatever source derived.."
this was a point of contention at the time of passage of the amendment
this is a pretty broad statement
i cant really figure out what the legaleeze of the tax laws state
but the amendment i can read
if they wanna tax you...
they will
your only defense would be to contest the meaning of the word 'income'
which i think had been done before
anyone got a link to that case?
nokilt1 3 years ago
faileditsdrugtest has obviously failed to read the SCOTUS opinions that make it clear that the income tax on wages is 'the most basic element' of the income tax.
That's why 'personal services' (wages, salaries) is in the number 1 position in section 61 when the elements of gross income are listed.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago 4
@averageworkinggal if you read the regulations as they pertain to section 61 you would see that it is of any source derived, unless excluded by law. This also means unless excluded by the constitution, as EVERY law is to be read in light of it. IF you look though section 61 where these sources are named and you get a list. The regulations on 1.861-8 that pertain to section 61state "...a class of income may included excluded income." In simpler terms not everything on the list is always
polevaultrockstr 1 year ago
@averageworkinggal taxable. Your citation of "personal services" only apply to "non-resident aliens and citizens entitled to the benefits of section 262. If you look at section 262 it applies to those who receive most of their income from federal possessions, not the average citizen.
polevaultrockstr 1 year ago
Also, if the IRS detects that an employee has filed a fraudulent W4, such as claiming exempt status when they are clearly being paid a salary, the IRS has the authority from Congress to instruct the employer to withhold.
If an idiot employee wants to play stupid games with his W4, the employer certainly has just cause to terminate at will.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago 2
one should not sighn a w-4 and mark exempt that is not what one does . one cancells the w-4 alltogether. and if an employeer wants to terminate becouse one cancells his w-4 the employee will have a civil case and the irs wont help the buisness. its in the code friend.
passyourdrugtest 3 years ago
Filing a weird w-4 with one's employer, does nothing to protect an individual from their tax obligation.
faileditsdrugtest not only is ignorant of tax law, but it even exceeds the lunacy of your typical tax denier by showing complete ignorance of the Employment-at-Will employment law doctrine.
The employer can fire at will for good reason, no reason or bad reason except in cases of violation of law, which does not including W-4 fraud.
Play you stupid game. Kiss your job goodbye.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago 3
averageworkinggal, have you noticed that failedyourdrugtest and taxdenierfraudexposed seem to mis-spell all the same words?
kaysandesses 3 years ago
"if an employeer wants to terminate becouse one cancells his w-4 the employee will have a civil case and the irs wont help the buisness. its in the code friend."
WHERE in the code? While you're at it, do a little research on "at will" employment.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
You can find the law by googling on 'tax protester arguments' and finding that this argument is one of the oldest and worst arguments the tax deniers use and they've managed to fool some of the foolish into spending time in Club Fed.
IRC sections 1, 61, 63.
Yep, the law that always was.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago
Well you should actually try reading the entire code. Read the definitions. Don't take things at face value and by what the "publications" which are not law. I have read the code. USC title 26 and can't find any law that says I am required to pay taxes. Do I? Hell yeah. I don't want them kicking my door down. But I find no law that makes me liable to pay a tax or to Violate my 5th amendment rights when I file. If government is so sure then why didn't they answer the WTP foundations petition?
SendARope 3 years ago
IRC Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
Section 6072 provides the familiar April 15th statutory time basis: "[R]eturns made on the basis of the calendar year shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year."
All your arguments are foolish.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago
The WTP petition is frivolous. It should be ignored. It's been thrown out by the courts.
Some lunatic tax denier group files a frivolous petition because they don't want to seek competent tax law advice and face reality.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago
however the code says that if you are liable for the tax one is expected to pay. you are only liable becouse you sighned a w4 . socancell the w-4 with a w4-T and have your employer stop withholding . then file a 1040 and correct it. this show me the law stuff wont help you. ed and elain we fucken fools who could have stayed out of jail just like snipes and you better learn too.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
taxdenierfraudexposed exposes its willfulness to violate federal tax laws with that argument.
It should use that in its tax evasion trial to ensure a long stay in Club Fed.
Committing tax fraud with a fraudulent W4 does nothing to protect the individual from owing the tax imposed by federal law and the additional penalties.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago
NOT what is a fruadulent w-4 ? you have a w-4 withholding agreement if you cancell the agreement as stted in the code printed right there on the dam form then therer is nothing for them to hold over your head.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
Wrong. The employer is mandatd by law to withhold federal income tax on its employees. If you fail to file a W4 with your employer to reduce withholding, they will withhold the maximum amount.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago 2
wrong the buisness is conducting wrongfully as a federal employeer in the first place notice you keep saying FEDERAL income from its nonfederal employees which they are not becouse any a federal worker is a employee
passyourdrugtest 3 years ago
faileditsdrugtest is obviously bonkerz, showing a complete lack of grasp of the tax laws.
These tax deniers continously expose their mental delusions to the world.
They can't even put together a properly spelled, grammatically correct statement.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago 2
"faileditsdrugtest is obviously bonkerz, showing a complete lack of grasp of the tax laws."
Translated: passyourdrugtest is a typical tax protestor moron who simply recycles unverifiable nonsense he dredges up from various conspiracy theorist websites and videos. He doesn't even understand the basic underlying concepts of the Constitution or our mode of government but prances about acting as if he will be the first nominee to fill the next SCOTUS vacancy.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
maybe he didnt passhisdrugtest?
nokilt1 3 years ago
The tax law, IRC section 1 primarily, imposes an affirmative obligation on the individual to pay the tax.
You have failed to read the relevant court opinions, which clearly state that.
You also show little understanding of how withholding was established through federal law during WWII.
You can't 'cancel' your tax obligation with a W-4.
Your notion is ridiculous.
You can only reduce withholding.
You still owe the tax.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago
pay the tax if one is liable you have failed to prove liability . Needless to say, and despite 3402(p)(3)(B), treating payments as though they were "wages" paid to an "employee" does not transform them into "income", if they are actually paid to a private-sector worker.
section 3402.(p)(3)(B)
if you never sighn a w-4 then HOW would you have withholdings?
passyourdrugtest 3 years ago
faileditsdrugtest has added illiteracy to its already proven mental delusions. I already explained withholding.
The employer is mandated by law to withhold and does withhold whether you file a W-4 or not.
You file a W-4, at your option, to claim additional tax exemptions that could reduce your estimted tax liability thus requiring a smaller withholding amount to pay the tax.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago 3
Yet another kook that thinks wages are only income if they are paid to a civil servant.
Anyone can google on 'tax protester arguments' and see that this tax denier notion is nonsense (aka Frivolous).
The SCOTUS made it clear in Glenshaw Glass that income are all assessions to wealth (such as wages or salary), fully realized (paid to the individual) which the individual has complete dominion over.
The SCOTUS did not say 'only in the case of civil servant government employees' and never will.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago 3
"wages are only income if they are paid to a civil servant." ? wages are not income they are the pay to a federal worker. where does it say that a non federal worker earns wages?
passyourdrugtest 3 years ago
"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves." United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
RetSquid 3 years ago 2
There is a law and nafet has given a reasonably good synopsis of the law.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
Quoting a few random codes in the "law" is not a good synopsis. There is no law but just a bunch of vague codes that never specifically state WHO is a taxpayer and WHAT is taxable. You see a lot of this deception by design in the legalese of the code. Words like "individual" "taxpayer" "resident" "Citizen" "united states" but they lack the definitions that are required of such terms to make the law compliant. THERE IS NO LAW! SHOW ME THE LAW! FREE ED AND ELAINE BROWN!!!
SendARope 3 years ago
26 USC 1 says who pays and how much
26 USC 61 & 63 explains what is paid on
26 USC 6012 & 6151 tell when and where to pay the tax
Sooooooo, you can continue to travel down the road of delusion, or you can look beyond the standard tax protestor fare.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
sendarope is really DopeARope.
Ed and Elaine are idiots like dopearope.
They got what they deserved - an extended stay in Club Fed.
Dopearope is still batting zero like the rest of these lunatic tax deniers with their frivlous arguments.
Some terms do not need more than the common everyday definition.
Additional Definition is only required if a more specific definition is needed as the courts have repeatedly explained.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago
There is no law
SendARope 3 years ago
I just realized that kaysandesses has already said this. Sorry. I just think that at the very minimum, this video just goes to show how ignorant people are to what they are legally obligated to do and not obligated to do. I know I am, too much time to read it all, not that I haven't tried.
nafet 3 years ago
Dr. Elaine Brown & Ed Brown dared to ask
the Kangaroo Court to show them the LAW, and were convicted by a Jury of Sheep-People,
and the Court Never did "Show them the Law". Same with Irwin Schiff, 80 years old. The Government is on auto-pilot headed for
the drop at Niagara Falls, and People need
to GET involved and take control at the County
Level. If D.A. won't prosecute, and Sheriff
refuses to execute warrants, it all stops. Especially if the Sheriff Arrests Federal Agents.
superpencil007 3 years ago
Hmm. I can smell the martial law already. :)
nafet 3 years ago
Federal tax code subsection 1 makes each American citizen liable to pay income tax. Or so I've been told.
nafet 3 years ago
WRONG ! Read the IRS code book, even former IRS enforcement agent Joe Bannister could NOT find "the Law".
superpencil007 3 years ago
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE Subtitle A--Income Taxes CHAPTER 1--NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES Subchapter A--Determination of Tax Liability PART I--TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
(b) Heads of households
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
frwebgate . access . gpo . gov
nafet 3 years ago
url available to those who want to see it. Message me or whatever. I just googled it, found the gov site and pasted.
nafet 3 years ago
Wm Benson, researched and wrote:
THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS. In it in proved that "Personal" Federal Income TAX was never properly RATIFIED. In so doing,
he proved it was VOID from the start. FROM THE START.
superpencil007 3 years ago
I wasn't asked if the law should be legal. I was asked if there is a law. I have provided that law. If you want me to talk about the 16th I will, but it won't matter because until I do as much research as these tax protesters I will not be taken as a valid source, neither will any site I quote. You've given me a dead end, as people who argue the 16th wasn't ratified claim to have the orig. documents from the ratification from different states. I do not have the financial backing to counter this.
nafet 3 years ago
Benson proved nothing and the government has obtained injunctions against his fraud.
The income tax on wages and salaries was declared constitutional by the SCOTUS 20 years earlier in the Pollock case.
If there was no 16th Amendment, Congress can go right on imposing the income tax on wages and salaries. Royalties, rents and dividends might be arguable, but not wages and salaries.
Too bad, tax deniers.
The income tax on wages and salaries is THE LAW THAT ALWAYS WAS.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago
it may be a violation of the fifth if you let it. the person submitting the form is the final word,as for 26USC 1, that refers to "income" There is no personal liability for John Doe specified in the law.IF JOHN MEETS THE FOREGOING QUALIFICATIONS, HE IS OBLIGED TO DO SEVERAL THINGS, THE CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH IS THE CREATION OF A PERSONAL LIABILITY.allegations on an "information return"(W-2,1099)DECLARING that someone has received more than the exemption amount of "income" WILL BE PRESUMED TRUE
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
"it may be a violation of the fifth if you let it."
Like if you're lying on your return?
"that refers to "income" There is no personal liability for John Doe specified in the law."
You must not have read it.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
the w2 claiming i made federal pay or WAGES is a lie so i correct it thus asserting my rights...the liability DOES NOT EXHIST UNTIL SOMEONE CREATS IT. IF THE LIABILITY EXHIST AND IS TRUE , SO IT IS , IF NOT IT NEEDS TO BE RESPONDED TO .....
"Duh. CtC is a quick way to land in the clink. Just ask the author.",.. i converse with him all the time and hes not in jail. whats your point. i have not paid federal income taxes in years becouse im not liable as ive proven to the service
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
"i converse with him all the time and hes not in jail. whats your point."
I didn't intend to imply HE was in jail. Did you ask him about how he lost his federal case? Did he also tell you his appeal to the SC was denied? Do you know what that means? It means he's full of bullshit and you'd be wise to ignore his nonsense.
"becouse im not liable as ive proven to the service"
I think you're lying.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
There is a tax imposed on "income" in excess of the current exemption amount. What "income" is, and whether or not one actually received any, is irrelevant to this fact.There IS something called "income" which IS taxed(The Revenue Act of 1938. The rates, and various other aspects of the tax, have periodically been modified by individual enactments since this original enactment,the product of which are currently reflected in Sections 1, 61, 63, 6001, 6011(a),6012(a)and 6065 of IRC of 1986).SEC.11
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
You're plagiarizing your posts and I've found the source. You yap on and on about how income tax is illegal and you don't even know the arguments and have to copy someone else's material.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED: We can all see now who is the fraud here: you.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
im not claiming to be reciting "material" of mine rather points of fact . and when did I EVER SAY INCOME TAX IS ILLEGAL? now your acting like IRS employyees ive delt with who lie and put words in place for others. now I AM BEGINING TO BELIEVE YOU ARE A IRS MOLE> as for the sourse you "DISCOVERED" i am always promoting and reading from "CRACKING THE CODE" and LOSTHORIZONS DOT FUCKING COM,.. BITCH
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
"I AM BEGINING TO BELIEVE YOU ARE A IRS MOLE>"
HAHAHA all you morons dredge that up when you're beat.
""CRACKING THE CODE" and LOSTHORIZONS DOT FUCKING COM,."
Duh. CtC is a quick way to land in the clink. Just ask the author.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
HAHAHA all you morons dredge that up when you're beat You haven't managed to beat anyone here kandyassmoron thus the reasons for your lashing out at innocent people here and your ignoring them when they start schooling you on legal facts backed up by the irs's own laws. It's not their fault you have problems interpreting code properly. I bet you rode the short bus didn't you, in fact I bet you drive that same short bus today.
PNWScout2 3 years ago
freiken sheep. i only dont pay i dont let them take it..the w4 you sighn and put youe ss on is a witholding AGREEMENT. so cancell it, now THAT should be common sense
passitkitdotcom 3 years ago
Code is law as set down in Art. 1, Sec. 7 of the Constitution. The 16th amendment was ratified, making it law. Furthermore, if you don't like how your tax money is being spent tell your representatives in Congress. The true path to lowering taxes is through fiscal responsibility in Congress. Spreading mistruths about the legality of income tax accomplishes nothing.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
Working at the IRSS must be nice. There is no law. The 2nd amendment tells me I have rights regarding guns yet there are "Laws" that govern that "Right" the same is true of amnd 16. It tells the govt that they can tax but they must pass laws that make those taxes something that can be enforced. Title 26irc contains no law requiring the average american to pay tax on their income. How is filing an income tax return not a violation of the 5th amendment?
SendARope 3 years ago
"It tells the govt that they can tax but they must pass laws that make those taxes something that can be enforced."
Title 26 of the U.S. Code is LAW. I guess you ignored my post you responded to.
"Title 26irc contains no law requiring the average american to pay tax on their income."
26 USC 1
"How is filing an income tax return not a violation of the 5th amendment? "
How do you think it is?
kaysandesses 3 years ago
gaysadness the 16th didnt change anything . the truth about . the FEDERAL INCOME TAX ..is just that , its for FEDERAL WORKERS. if you file a w4 you are liable to file a 1040 to voluntary comply and attest to the truthfullnes or you correct it.if the w2 is incorrect in that one did not earn federal WAGES then one does not claim FEDERAL WAGES ON THE RETURN one has to correct the w2
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
Wrong on the "16th".
26 USC 1 doesn't include only federal workers.
You're liable without the W-4.
The rest of your post is unintelligible drivel.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
Sixteenth Amendment WASN'T a transformational event at all.the Sixteenth Amendment accomplished nothing more dramatic than closing a minor loophole regarding the application of the already 51-year-old "income" tax to the dividends derived from personally-owned stock "discovered" by the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, on the basis of which the court struck down ten sections of the 1894 Revenue Act.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
Do you have something meaningful to say, or a cogent point to make? Thus far, you've succeeded only in rambling on about nothing.
kaysandesses 3 years ago