Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that:
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table...”
As explained in the regulations:
“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States...”
Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word “impose” means “to establish or apply as compulsory; levy.” So how can a tax be “imposed” if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can’t. If a tax is imposed on a person’s income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.
In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on unpaid taxes as a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the self-evident proposition that:
“The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation....”
U.S. v. Childs, 266 U.S. 304 (1924).
Also, Internal Revenue Code section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return “shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return.”
The words “shall ... pay” certainly look like an obligation to pay, and the Supreme Court has held that the United States may enforce a stamp tax through a suit to collect the amount of the tax from the person required to pay the tax, even though the statute did not impose any personal liability for the tax, stating:
“When a statute says that a person shall pay a given tax, it obviously imposes upon that person the duty to pay...”
U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 US 250 (1910).
The obligation to file a return is established by Internal Revenue Code section 6012. A person having more than a stated minimum of income is required to file a return and, according to section 6151, is required to pay the tax shown on the return.
So what have the courts said about the claim that there is no one liable for the tax imposed on their incomes?
“The payment of income taxes is not optional ... "
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).
“Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) establishes an income tax ‘liability.’ 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, 84 AFTR2d ¶99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).
“Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on ‘income.’ Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C. section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on ‘income.’”
United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5317, n. 3, 2000 TNT 186-76, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 8/25/2000).
“Plaintiff’s arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.] First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax ‘liability’. The plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is ‘imposed’. See 26 U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and creating a ‘liability’ for tax. The Court fails to see a difference. Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes.”
Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
“Appellants’ argument that the Internal Revenue Code does not define income or impose income tax liability on individuals is also meritless. 26 U.S.C. section 1 clearly imposes income tax liability on individuals.”
Liddane v. Commissioner, KTC 2000-28, No. 99-5499 (3d Cir. 1/14/2000), aff’ng T.C. Memo 1999-330 (referring to “the same partially incomprehensible but thoroughly frivolous arguments that they are not liable for Federal income taxes,” the Tax Court imposed sanctions of $10,000 for each docketed case for filing frivolous petitions).
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals....”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
This next one really hits home - see if this sounds familiar:
“The Plaintiffs further assert, in their Reply Memorandum dated September 12, 2005, that the ‘IRS has repeatedly refused to show [Plaintiffs] where in the [Internal Revenue] Code it makes [Plaintiffs] “liable for” the tax they claim is owed.’ Plfs.’ Reply at p. 7. The Plaintiffs allege that it is ‘abundantly unclear’ what the term taxpayer, as used throughout the Internal Revenue Code, means, and state that ‘when [the United States] can show where [Plaintiffs are] ‘subject to” or “liable for” a so-called tax, at that point [Plaintiff] will gladly pay the tax.’ Id. At 4, 10. However, the Government does not have the burden of showing the Plaintiffs ‘where’ they are ‘subject’ or ‘liable for’ the tax before the tax is paid. The comprehensive administrative enforcement scheme and judicial review process with which the Government is required to proceed under the IRS code is well established and none of it requires the Government to answer the Plaintiffs’ philosophical questions regarding the tax system. For a clear explanation of ‘where in the law subjects the Plaintiffs to tax,’ the court directs the Plaintiffs’ attention to Amendment XVI of the Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1, which is entitled ‘Tax Imposed.’
Celauro v. United States, 411 F. Supp. 2D 257, 269, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3147, 2006-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,168, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 761, No. 05-cv-02245-ADS-WDW (U.S.D.C. E.D. N.Y. 1/28/2006).
See also, United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (Del. 1982).
Now - it may be the case that this does not convince a certain person who shall not be named (at this time) that any of these statutory sections individually impose an income tax - but collectively, as the Courts have held, they do. It may be the case that the Courts are philosophically wrong. But until these decisions are overturned, or the IRS is disbanded (hopefully sooner rather than later) if you have income over 5,000 dollars or so, you are better off filing and not having a headache at some future date. Now, somebody owes me money. Im looking at you Zuniga. You made the offer online (two .99999 gold buffalo pieces was it?), I accept your offer. Here are the laws, regulations and internal revenue code provisions you seek along with case law that supports my position. In Lieu of payment to myself, please make a donation of one half that sum in my name "Kelvin D. McCabe" to the efforts in St Paul to put up billboards and what not for the convention. The other half, likewise in my name, can be donated to thestrangebedfellows c/o "windycityatty" Thanking you in advance,
Kelvin D McCabe, Esq
a/k/a/ windycityatty
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 1396 reads
taxable sources are defined in Section 861, should be read. Section 61 merely defines income items. I wonder if Mr Lawyer is aware of the need of a valid OMB number on any form used by the government to collect information. Might want to read 44 USC 3500-3520. If you people want to know what the real problem is, may I suggest teamlaw.org and enjoy a history lesson on Law/
Forgive me if this point has already been raised in an earlier post...
From my research of the IRC, statutory construction, case law, etc., one thing seems very clear to me:
NEVER CONTEST THE TAX LIABILITY OF A TAXPAYER!!!!!! Doing so is a lost cause. You'll end up fined and/or in jail.
Perhaps one would have better success contesting whether or not he/she is a "taxpayer".
“The revenue laws apply to taxpayers, and NOT to nontaxpayers. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers. Congress does not assume to deal with nontaxpayers, neither are they the subject of nor object of revenue laws.”
Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 456 F.2d. 713
This is a very important Supreme Court Ruling. This ruling reveals how foolish it is to defend the position of "no income tax liability" by citing laws (26usc) that apply only to persons that DO have an income tax liability.
The REAL question is, how does one live the life of this "nontaxpayer" mentioned by the Supreme Court?
Ultimately I do believe that the income tax, while immoral, legally applies to everyone, including wage earners. I am just pointing out that there is ample room to make these arguments and the Congress, Treasury, and IRS have certainly opened the door to them with their shoddy, confusing statutes.
I just thought of a reason why they wouldn't revise the code to say wages - because then everyone convicted for not paying taxes on wages before the revision would cite the change as substantitive and therefore that wages were NOT taxable when they were convicted, right?
Damn lawyers. Maybe they should give the telemarketers a crack at writing these laws.... :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
But man, I dunno why you don't just read the whole American Glasnost blog first, then see if you still can't see how crafty Congress was, with its IRS scam!
You're just not giving them enough credit, Tom. As Phil Hart's book describes, you were spot-on in characterising the IRS scam as having been pitched initially to the voters as a "soak the rich" scheme. Hart's book retraces a lot of the floor debate and public bloviating. And also a good deal of the back-room deal cutting with the big mercantilists, who were then given 'loopholes', while the average Joe was coaxed...and then shamed...and finally terrorized into the "fair share' line!
Here's what you're struggling with, Tom. You're treating this as though some honest people needed to jest exact a lawful tax under the US Constitution's taxing requirements, on all the people. But that's not what happened at all, though they tried to violate the uniformity and apportionment rules in the Revenue Act of 1894:
“There shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income received in the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States . . . from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatsoever, a tax.”
Pretty inclusive, right? You and Claire are wondering why they just don't make the language that way again...and of course that would make the whole Tax Code superfluous, right? Correct: then EVERYONE including the billionaires would get whacked. That can't happen, because the billionaires, as Rep. Hart explains in his book, were the ones who devised this IRS scam originally!
To stay in office under their puppetmasters, the corrupt Congressman and Senator needs to leave a huge Tax Code in place to let all the big boys skate free -- the ones whom Congress was supposed to "soak" back in 1913! -- while you little Taxpayers toil from January until May to pay for the upkeep on thier estates. And of course Claire whines at ME(!) for "mooching" off of her!!?
The income tax industry -- like the two prize-winning al Qaeda members who've tried to win two gold coins from me on this forum (Dan and Kevin) have tried to rescusitate the old Revenue Act of 1894 but they're just 114 years out of synch.
As any student of American tax history knows (and Phil Hart covers in his book): the truth is, the language above from the Revenue Act of 1894 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; overturned for violating the Constitution’s rules for uniformity and apportionment.
The federal tax code says no such thing. But you copied the long list of taxable activities that I include on the American Glasnost blog. There are plenty of activities and categories that are specifically called out in the Tax Code, and since it would have been much, much easier to just say "EVERY form of income is taxable for ALL Americans" -- that was not an option. Congress already got busted 114 years ago, and Americans with computers have long memories.
This iw why I keep insisting that the Tax Code as written is perfectly constitutional...because it is. It HAD to be, or any section repugnant to the Constitution would have been challenged and struck down by the courts.
But I'm still not sure why you think that Congress, with its 18% approval rating and dozens of members currently serving prison sentences, is till basically honest? Ask Ron Paul: the average member today is a scoundrel of the first order, having had his/her eyes on political power since they were in middle school!
We're now much like Europe, though not quite fallen to the level of a Mexico. Still, it's comforting to know that millions of your fellow Americans aren't going to be defrauded anymore. If the government can make it's case for sponging my check, let them make the case. They haven't done so yet, so I don't let them sponge. And all the highest, well-settled rulings I find from federal courts (appellate and Supreme) are on my side, of my same understanding.
What's not to like? :)
“realizing and receiving income on earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed. . . Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege” Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 819 [Oreg. 1930]; Cole v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 456 [Tenn. 1960]
So, the government can tax the use of a privilege. For example, it can tax a corporation for the privilege of even existing; a corporation is “an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state.” It can declare an excise on “the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity.” It can tax “special rights, belonging to the individual or class, and not to the mass . . . an exemption from some general burden, obligation or duty” Redfield, 819; Flint, 151; Cole, 456
In the case of an income tax, the tax is “laid upon the happening of an event [the use of a privilege], as distinguished from its tangible fruits [the income].” In such a case, “the tax is imposed upon the doing of business of the character described, and the measure of the tax is to be the income” Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 206-7 [1920]; Tyler v. United States, 281; Flint, 146
“The sixteenth [16th Amendment] does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune...it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted citizens... it is intended only to remove all occasions from any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary.” Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245 (1920)
There are two fascinating stories within the larger history of IRS corruption in Congress: one is the hiring of Walt Disney to produce wartime propaganda movies featuring Donald Duck, with the chant, "Beat the Axis, Pay Your Taxes!!!" That whole story is a doozy; even today's Congress isn't quite as brassy as that. Then there was the institution of the 'payroll deduction' scheme, wherein now every man's boss became the bad guy, instead of the fat cats in Washington! Read the book "Toil, Taxes, and Trouble" by gutsy businesswoman Vivien Kellums, if you want to see how a true patriot tried to stop the blood-letting, but was unsuccessful amongst a generation of WWII-dazed dupes.
Thank God, things have turned around considerably now! You have to love the information age.
www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
>>There are plenty of activities and categories that are specifically called out in the Tax Code, and since it would have been much, much easier to just say "EVERY form of income is taxable for ALL Americans" -- that was not an option. Congress already got busted 114 years ago, and Americans with computers have long memories.
That still doesn't answer the question: why not wages, specifically? Is it because the "big boys" were using wages as a loophole or something? It doesn't make sense to me. Tom is right; it does seem like wages should have been the first thing to be listed.
the absence of wages on that list is indicative of the fact that wages are not really taxable, that making them taxable would make the law unconsitutional just as the 1890's income tax was ruled unconstituitional.
However, Dave, this doesn't address Kelvin's point that the 1890's income tax preceded the 16th amendment. I believe that the argument that a present tax on wages would be unconstitutional rests on a ruling by the Supreme Court (Brushbaer?) that said that the 16th amendment didn't give the Congress any new power to tax, or something to that effect. I believe there are arguments against using this ruling in this way to support your argument, though. I will let Kelvin make them when he returns to this thread, but at least one may be that the unconstitutionality of the 1890's income tax was due to it being a direct tax that was unapportioned, but that the 16th amendment removed the requirement for apportionment from the income tax and that therefore the constitutional barriers to the 1890's income tax are no longer there.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
from me. You are spot on in your analysis. Think about this chronologically. The Congress attempted to pass an income tax law that was in violation of the then existing constitutional framework of apportionment, etc... which the Sup Ct correctly struck down. The 16th amendment was then proposed and after several years was eventually ratified. The 16th amendment was a response to the original constitution's apportionment language and modified it as such to get rid of that requirement.
You could have been a great lawyer Tom. Perhaps your love of liberty would have you brought you to the dark side of criminal defense work where liberty is fought for almost every single day. Granted, not on behalf of the best people our society has to offer - but - it is through our vigilant defense of the presumably "guilty" that the truly innocent have a hope of never being wrongly incarcerated.
And did I mention I hate tax law?
You are either very tired, or simply obstinate...or perhaps were too lazy to read the long post I just placed right over your picture there. The Congress was slapped down almost a century ago by the Supreme Court for trying to tax wages. Please, Claire: READ THE RULINGS JUST ABOVE YOUR HEAD, THERE!
The US Constitution has rules for apportionment and uniformity of taxation. To be constitutional, those rules must be met, or the law gets kicked back by the Court. READ THE POST JUST ABOVE YOUR HEAD, MADAM.
Thank you.
>>The Congress was slapped down almost a century ago by the Supreme Court for trying to tax wages.
More recent Supreme court decisions support taxing wages. [from wikipedia:] "In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'gross income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on"accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."
>>The US Constitution has rules for apportionment and uniformity of taxation. To be constitutional, those rules must be met
Is that still the case, in spite of the 16th amendment?
>>“realizing and receiving income on earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed. . . Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege” Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 819 [Oreg. 1930]; Cole v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 456 [Tenn. 1960]
I don't think you have made the case that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to lay and collect a tax on a person's salary. The payment of a salary is a market transaction like any other. An employee sells their work to an employer. The employer buys this work by paying a salary to the employee. The employee only has a right to his wages if he has done provided the service that he and the employer agreed upon. No one has the right to their job; it is a privilege granted to them by whoever is employing them. Likewise, no one has a right to the labor of another person; the worker has to agree to sell his work.
The above Supreme Court quote sounds more than a bit Marxist to me. Remember that labor unions and worker's rights were really big in the 1930's. That could have a lot to do with this.
the difference between:
realizing and receiving income "on earnings" is not a privilege that can be taxed. . . Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a "privilege”
Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 819 [Oreg. 1930]; Cole v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 456 [Tenn. 1960]
And:
In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'gross income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies...
This is a very tricky subterfuge Mr Zuniga has created here with his two cases that has two main parts for it to be successful. One, you have to note the difference between the courts making the decision because it is of critical distinction and two - you have to look at the specific wording.
As far as the courts- the Oregon and Tennesee cases are not federal income tax cases. They are state cases - so the question at issue is under, respectively, the Oregon state tax laws and the Tennesee state tax laws whether the tax at issue was legal under state law. These cases, although they are selectively, purposefully,and insidiously sought for the words employed, have no bearing whatsoever on federal tax issues. Federal courts hear federal tax issues - state courts here state tax court decisions. Any and all cites or references to State court decisions on the question of a federal tax issue is a giant red flag that the information is selectively quoted to appear to the layman that it answers the question or provides some nugget of information when in fact it does not and cannot. Thats why I call Zuniga a fraud and a liar. He knows this fact quite well and refuses to address it. In comparison to those cases, you have the U.S. Sup Ct case you cited and (which i had also cited much earlier in the thread) interpreting what the federal tax code means for that one little question. This is where the federal income tax laws go to either die or be enshrined and made operable on all of us.
Second, note the specific quoted material - receive income "on earnings" ...and this cannot be taxed as a "privilege". We are no longer talking about the federal tax on gross income - but more precisely a State tax on things such as capital gains, etc... which, if you already paid a federal capital gains tax, it may well be illegal for a State to attempt to tax those same capital gains as well. State courts interpreting their own statutes are not bound by Sup Ct decisions interpreting federal tax code provisions. Zuniga is playing a shell-game. Its a parlor trick. Like I said in my first reply to him.
I have tried desperately to educate the people here on the legal reasons why Zuniga is misleading and corrupt- but i am afraid it is all falling on deaf ears. Without a proper legal education, people just wont understand why a state court tax decision interpreting or ruling on a state tax law has no bearing whatsoever on a federal tax question - but I have warned them all. What they choose to do with the information is up to them. I fear for the movement though if such charlatans can prey upon their sensibilities in such a fashion and be so successful. This isnt about popularity on BTM for me, i really do care about people falling for shoddy advice and getting hurt. But there is nothing more I can say or do.
This little example here is just a portion of the misleading tripe that Zuniga is peddling. Rest assured, the rest of it is in the same general fashion. Selective quoting of non-relevant cases, using the complexity of the Code to his advantage,general manipulation and concealment - he is quite skilled at his trade. But its all built on a house of cards and it will, if given only a slight nudge, all come crumbling down. Not that it would matter much, because the people who want to believe will still believe. Just show them a video of a guy asking an IRS agent where in the law they are required to file and the IRS agent doesn't comply right then and there - voila! There is no requirement you have to file. Its all kinda sad really.
as to Mr Zuniga's bet: "Show me a law that says anyone has an obligation to file taxes and I will pay you 2 gold pieces" has been won by me? It seems that is what you are saying.
:)
Why dont you bring Rick Williams, Esquire, into the debate and ask him whether a valid contract between Me and Zuniga was established - - from A) His offer B) My acceptance C) All in writing Signed by our electronic signatures. The date is listed at the time of each writing. Sounds like a valid contract to me - but what do i know, im just a lowly criminal attorney. Oh, the sorrows.
The money goes: 1) to Operation St Paul and 2) thestrangebedfellows. I think both could use some gold buillon.
Anybody know what two .9999 fine buffalo gold pieces retails nowadays?
I can't buy that logic, Claire. They specifically list 15 different types of activities that would qualify as "gross income," but conspicuously exclude wages. People have been making the argument that wages are not income under the law for decades - the tax law was revised within the last 10 years. Why not just put "Wages" there during the last revision?
If I passed a law against keeping animals in your home, and it read, "every US citizen is prohibited from keeping prohibited animals in their home," and then when you went to the definitions, it read,
"Prohibited animals include, but are not limited to, gerbils, parakeets, otters, reptiles, and geckos."
Would there not be a controversy over whether dogs and cats were prohibited? Wouldn't it be extremely curious they were excluded from the list, given that they are probably 80% of all pets? Wouldn't it be a silly way to write a law if your intention was to prohibit dogs and cats?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
>>People have been making the argument that wages are not income under the law for decades
Haven't those same people made the argument that compensation for services isn't income? Isn't the argument that income is only profits from investments, or something like that?
>>Would there not be a controversy over whether dogs and cats were prohibited? Wouldn't it be extremely curious they were excluded from the list, given that they are probably 80% of all pets? Wouldn't it be a silly way to write a law if your intention was to prohibit dogs and cats?
If the law included "domestic animals" as prohibited, then I would have to assume dogs and cats were prohibited (even though they weren't specifically named, but otters and geckos were named), since they are domestic animals. The tax code counts "compensation for services" as gross income, so we have to assume that wages are included, since wages are compensation for services.
My point is that the code seems deliberately mysterious, as would my hypothetical law if written as I described. Laws are not supposed to be mysterious, nor are they supposed to require good critical thinking skills in order to interpet. A good law specifically promulgates the prohibited or required action without any ambiguity. If my intention were to prohibit dogs and cats, they would be at the top of my list in my hypothetical law, not left to be assumed to be included in a broad category. There is some reason that wages were deliberately not named, but that probably dates back to when the first income tax was imposed, after the 16th amendment was ratified.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
all-inclusive language being overturned by the Supreme Court, and the court ruling that Congress had to refund all tax revenues collected thereunder!
This was well before the 16th Amendment, but even that Amendment was not at all the watershed that both sides (statist proponents and Bill Benson followers alike) think it was. I've already shown you, repeatedly, that the high court ruled -- repeatedly -- that the Sixteenth did NOT institute any new tax.
In other words, Congress has tried repeatedly to say "IT'S ALL MINE....MMMMWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!" but that darned Constitution keeps getting in the way, and (thus far) the Supreme Court has been unwilling to completely violate the Constitution like that.
Because the king and parliament had been such rapists and pillagers of villagers, our forefathers were reticent about taxation. Although the party of Hamilton and Clay had gained a foothold by the time of the Constitutional Convention, they could not push through ALL their plans for oligarchical rapine. The Patrick Henry contingent at least got a few bones: the uniformity and apportionment requirements in the Constitution put the burden for taxation on the sovereign States, and makes it very difficult for a self-feeding monster to grow in Washington D.C.
You keep fumbling around, Tom, wondering why they can't just say, "everything that is yours, is MINE!" Because the Constitution was written by brilliant men (some of them) who had been through Hell with a rapacious government. The uniformity and apportionment requirements gave the STATES, not the federal government, the actual taxing power, and they were supposed to in turn pay their collections over to Washington.
Until the crooks took over.
But the Supreme Court has fought them back every time. You may believe the Tax Code is "illegal" and "immoral" and you just hate it. But it is still constitutional, so I suggest you obey it. For most Americans, it doesn't impose a tax on you anyway. Why would you hate it?
Because it's a mystery to you. You've never seen the law under which you supposedly have a legal duty to work from the first of the year until mid-May for "your government" (interst bill to the Federal Reserve, actually). You scratch your head at the how and why, when the answer is not far to seek, for those with a realistic view of history and human nature.
To put it succinctly: get it in writing!
www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
That term doesn't equate with wages to me right away. It sounds more like the payment of billed services, such as by an electrician that comes to your house and performs a service. It may very well be that the IRS considers "compensation for services" to mean wages as well, but here is my question:
Why not just list "Wages" in the very first line and end all doubt? This controversy is not new, it has been going on since long before the last time the Tax Code was modified. Why do they not just put Wages there, right at the top of the list? What is causing them to have to be so mysterious?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
staved off a lot of these objections if they would have drafted things more clearly. Legislators are never keen on making things simple. There all lawyers! But perhaps they didnt feel the need to modify the language because the Federal Courts (whose interpretation of what a law says is controlling over me you claire zuniga and everyone else here) have interpreted "compensation for services" to include wages, salary, tips, etc...
Plus, dont forget the source of all this - the 16th amendment itself - which says that the Congress shall have the power to impose an income tax on income FROM ALL SOURCES (paraphrasing) - - wages are a source of income, salary is a source of income, capital gains are a source of income, rents received from rental property is a source of income, lottery winnings are a source of income etc.... - - dont miss the forest for the trees mi amigo.
There is no power of congress to impose an income tax in the manner it is imposed without constitutional authority. That authority is the 16th. amend. The statute should be read in conjunction with the amendment which gave it its authority in the first place. There can be no doubt BUT THAT wages are a source of income - no matter how misleadingly one defines "income" or "wages" - and i am 100% confident that the courts will back my position on this 100% of the time.
"The comprehensive administrative enforcement scheme and judicial review process with which the Government is required to proceed under the IRS code is well established and none of it requires the Government to answer the Plaintiffs’ philosophical questions regarding the tax system. For a clear explanation of ‘where in the law subjects the Plaintiffs to tax,’ the court directs the Plaintiffs’ attention to Amendment XVI of the Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1, which is entitled ‘Tax Imposed.’
Celauro v. United States, 411 F. Supp. 2D 257, 269, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3147, 2006-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,168, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 761, No. 05-cv-02245-ADS-WDW (U.S.D.C. E.D. N.Y. 1/28/2006). See how the court interpreted the statute in conjunction with the 16th amendment?
Studyoflife is a CPA - he can answer a lot of these questions better than I - which is great because i am going out drinking on a Fri night and will be gone -
I said a long time ago in this thread to watch out for the semantic tricks - this is one of them - and unfortunately, its entirely the IRS's fault. However, dont forget - we are leaving something out - the W-2 and the 1040 form - the W-2 has a box for wages, tips, etc.. and line 1040 whatever says to put that number on that line. Eventually you get to your adjusted gross income - which necessarily INCLUDES wages, tips, salary, etc.... Of course, the w-2 and 1040 are not laws - but they are legal forms derived from the laws so they are certainly persuasive as to what is meant by "income"
Its not a mystery and zuniga hasn't discovered a new planet. Talk to you guys later,
Kelvin
They are trying to be all inclusive. That is why I keep posting about the other web page about US Corp as the Debate (aka REAL War on Terror)!!
http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm
YOU are nothing more than another ENTITY to the US CORP!! YOU provide services as an entity to another ENTITY (Corporation, individual entity, etc.) and that is all you are. You're OWNED LITERALLY!!!
This is where we need to do our debate and concentrate our research under the LEGAL side because IRS is just another ENTITY under US CORP.!!!
I am going to start another thread for this very debate and post some questions of my research I have begun.
Dan Chapman
Given all the things that are taxable, why should wages NOT be taxable? Is there anything you get from reading the code that says that is not the intent of the law? In the absence of any such indication, don't you have to consider wages to be compensation for services?
Here is Section 61 - Gross Income defined (Taxable income is defined as gross income minus allowed deductions).
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.html
Why is wages not on the list? I know that it says "including, but not limited to..." but why not list wages right here, for all to see? THe section is SCREAMING for it. Wages are the income that MOST Americans pay taxes on. Why is the law silent here? Why create the opportunity for controversy?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
I would think "wages" would be covered right there in the first line:
"gross income means all income from whatever source derived..."
ALL income.
WHATEVER source derived.
I would read that to mean whether you were being paid to flip burgers or receiving compensation for making a speech in front of the International Society of Used Chewing Gum Collectors, you're on the hook.
It sounds pretty comprehensive to me - if you are getting money, you owe taxes....
The only way to end this argument for sure is to work for change from the inside, and achieve Ron Paul's wish of abolishing the IRS.
Ron Paul pays taxes.
Apparently, the guy who knows more about government, economics, constitution, etc... than 99% of all the people here pays federal taxes. I am 1000% confident that if anybody could find the magic loophole to get out of paying said taxes, it would be him.
I dont expect this to elicit any other response than : It's so he doesn't get arrested by the IRSQuaida - but it may dawn on at least one person here that this is all a charade if Dr Paul pays his taxes. I ain't holding out much hope.
We anita a lot more reason around here :)
And I agree and have said throughout the thread that the only way to get around this "scam" is to abolish the rules and regulations that perpetuate it. Which is of course what Dr Paul says too.
What is "compensation for services", then? Doesn't that clearly include wages? I wouldn't want to stake my freedom from incarceration on that not being the case.
Gotta love the Word Games if it doesn't say it; it doesn't mean it??
Wages = Compensation for services
How is it not all inclusive?? Better known as Mutually Inclusive.
Dan
What he argues is that the activities which produce "taxable income" are narrowly defined, and that most Americans do not engage in those "taxable income producing activities." Here is the list from his website:
"Reading through the Tax Code, I find that apparently I owe a federal income tax if I fall into any of a number of privileged activities and situations:
- If I live in D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Northern Mariana Islands;
- If I'm involved in manufacture or sale of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms;
- If I'm an officer or employee of the federal government;
- If I operate a merchant vessel;
- If I'm a nonresident alien or a principal of a foreign corporation with income derived from sources within the United States;
- If I'm a resident alien lawfully admitted to a State of the Union, the District of Columbia, or an insular possession of the United States;
- If I entered a voluntary withholding agreement for government personnel withholding either as an ‘employee’ (3401(c)) or an ‘employer’ (3401(d)) (See 26 CFR §31.3402(p)-1);
- If I’ve ever been notified by the Treasury Financial Management Service that I was responsible for administration of government personnel withholding (26 U.S.C. § 3403), or have applied for and received a Form 8655 Reporting Agent Authorization certificate;
- If I'm an officer or employee of the Treasury or any bureau of the Dept of the Treasury subject to IRS authority related to submission of collected taxes delegated by Treasury Order 150-15;
- If I receive items of taxable income from foreign sources;
- If I receive foreign mineral income;
- If I receive income from foreign oil and gas extraction;
- If I receive income from a China Trade Act corporation;
- If I receive income from a foreign controlled corporation as fiduciary agent of the corporation;
- If I receive income from insurance of U.S. risks under 26 U.S.C. 953(b)(5);
- If I receive taxable items of income from operation of an agreement vessel under section 607 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended;
- If I receive items of income from a public works contract subject to Federal income and Social Security tax withholding;
- If I own stock in, do business with, or have anything else to do with a corporation in which the [Federal] United States of America owns stock. (See notes following 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Chapter 194, 40 Stat. 1015);
- If I receive wages, remuneration, or other compensation as an officer or employee of an oceangoing vessel construed as an American employer;
- If I receive gambling winnings from the District of Columbia or insular possessions of the United States;
- If I receive items of income from maritime (international) trade in alcohol, tobacco or firearms;
- If I receive items of income from production and/or distribution of alcohol, tobacco or firearms in the District of Columbia or insular possessions of the United States;
- If I receive any items of income from activities taking place within an “internal revenue district” as such districts have been established under authority of 26 USC 7621 (U.S. Customs ports);
- orIf I receive items of income from maritime (international) trade in opium, cocaine or other controlled substances..."
According to his website, the Tax Code specifically lists these activities as subject to the income tax. He also claims that there are no other sections that define other activities that would also subject someone to the income tax. So, he cites inclusio unius est exclusio alterius to argue that if specific conditions are given under which people ARE liable for the tax, then those not meeting those conditions are "ipso facto" not liable. He also cites these two portions of court decisions:
“Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.” Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 297 (1904) [Emphasis added.]
“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.” Gould v. Gould , 245 U.S. 151 (1917) [Emphasis added.]
“In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that a law is presumed, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate prospectively; that, if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer...” Hassett v. Welch., 303 US 303, 82 L Ed 858. (1938) [Emphasis added.] "
I don't know if he is right or wrong, but I don't think his argument is circular. He asserts that some people, fitting the conditions above, ARE liable for the income tax, but that he, like most Americans, don't fit those conditions and are thus not liable for the income tax.
Again, I don't know what else in those 9,500 pages might work against this argument.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Let us look at this caselaw support it may be easier to explain:
"Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.” Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 297 (1904)"
Look at the year ^. 1904. The 16th amendment was not ratified until 1913. Before ratification, according to the u.s. constitution Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 state that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population. This essentially means that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state is required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that is equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation.
Now read the text of the 16th amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The 16th amendment drastically changed not only the TYPE of taxes that can be imposed, but also the MANNER in which they could be collected, apportioned, etc...
As far as what is considered income, i have cited various cases that explain what the Courts, whose job it is to interpret the law, have declared is income, plus, its in the code itself as study of life correctly points out:
§ 61 and § 63
Section 1, it will be observed, imposes the tax on your “taxable income.” How do you know what that is? Section 63 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 63, defines “taxable income” to mean “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by chapter 1 of the Code, so now we need to know what “gross income” is. So we turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, which provides the critical definition:
[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
"Compensation for services" above as been interpreted by the Courts to include: salary, wages, tips, etc...
Note: the (but not limited to) language quoted above in the definition of what is gross income is not my addition - its included in the original text. So you might as well take that exclusio alterius term from contract law and statutory construction you got from zuniga's website and throw it in the trash where it belongs. That statutory construction tool works when there is a list that is presumed exhaustive UNLESS the clear meaning of the statute or text says otherwise. This is why Zuniga is wrong. He mixes cases from before the 16th amendment was in effect with random rules of statutory construction that do not apply to the example he cites.
For confirmation of this (but not limited to) aspect of my point see:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-....
It will take your right there.
Stick with the experts Tom. I have nothing to gain but people's hate around here for saying the things I do on this topic - but it is worth it if people actually learn something about how law works in the real world - where real people go to jail for not filing taxes.
This is the No. 1 problem with reading the 9,500 page tax code that has THOUSANDS of amendments they want to continue to sight cases that are not longer valid to the current code.
Apparently this is where the code is unclear to almost everyone and I think needs clarification. I am not a Tax Attorney nor have I taken any case to court, so what I can see is that the Supreme Courts and Administrative courts DISAGREE. However, Mr Zuniga thinks everyone should go to the supreme courts to get the CORRECT verdict which he has yet to prove they have been RELIEVED to NOT PAYING ANY TAX!!
His service does not help you determine what part of the code you are supposed to follow because he is misleading you to think one section of the code applies to the WHOLE code instead of ONLY THAT SECTION of the code.
'Section 1, it will be observed, imposes the tax on your “taxable income.” How do you know what that is? Section 63 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 63, defines “taxable income” to mean “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by chapter 1 of the Code, so now we need to know what “gross income” is. So we turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, which provides the critical definition:
26 U.S.C. § 61
[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;'
So why does he get to get stuck on trying to define 'taxable income' in ONE part of the code continuously rather than subject the 'gross income' that is being substituted for 'taxable income' for the purpose of redefining a general term for that section of the code??
I also look at him as being circular because he is trying to use the foriegn section of the code to justify US taxpayers not needing to pay tax on income made in the USA. However, why do you think they give you a FORIEGN TAX CREDIT for your foriegn income because if you paid tax on it already you don't have to pay it again unless it's a smaller amount of tax as US requires.
Dan Chapman (not trying to hide name, never have)
Thanks for answering my next question, which was whether there is somewhere else in the tax code where "taxable income" is defined.
What about this:
>>“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States...”
If this is true, it seems pretty compelling to me. Doesn't this trump all the particular conditions for tax liability? In other words, you owe income tax if you sell alcohol, firearms and tobacco, AND, by the way, you also owe income tax if you are a citizen or resident of the US.
I am certainly old enough to be your mother, and even I am learning from all of this. You appear to have just taken a quote from the criminal defense lawyer, NOT from the Tax Code. Is that right, dmzuniga?
I wouldn't be using quotes from a criminal defense lawyer to prove anything about tax honesty, dear, or any other honesty.
I see that Mr. Mullen has already preceded my post. sorry.