Do you Pay....

Yes, I do.

Because it costs a lot less now than it will when the IRS charges me interest and fines on back taxes when they catch me several years from now. Their interest charge would be far greater than the combined rate of inflation and my rate of salary increase. And nothing I do with the short term extra money is worth going to jail.

Makes you wonder how many people pay because of fear of losing their freedom and not because of the law.

I don't pay because I don't make enough money. If I had to pay, I would pay.

People don't have this choice of reasons. Haven't you overlooked the fact that people can go to jail because of the law?

Thats what I meant by losing their freedom. But heres another question. Why would you go to jail if you didnt pay your income taxes?

Because what (Federal)law says you have to pay your income taxes?

The IRS tax codes.

Right, they are the branch that collects and enforces. But what law do they enforce to collect income taxes. IRS tax codes are not law.

Having asked you to clarify your question and having obtained a reply, I owe you the courtesy of this acknowledgement. I would not bother otherwise because I still don't understand what you are seeking.

So, I am standing down from this discussion - out of the way of the more perceptive answers you may get.

Sure they are. Otherwise no one would ever go to jail for not paying taxes. I have seen the documentary that supposedly 'proves' that no one has to pay taxes, but for some reason many that don't either end up paying more in the end, serving time, or both. As far as I know my father has never paid taxes--not to mention the IRS never bothered him--but I wonder whether they just know it is not worth their time to pursue. It wouldn't surprise me if you actually do not have to pay taxes, but in order to do so, you must not use government support programs or ever pay taxes to begin with, while also not working for anyone, or having others work for you. You never enter that system then to induce inquiries. In other words, you have to be a total economic outlaw of sorts to avoid taxes.

Sorry but The IRS code manual is not law. If you think so, try and find out what part of the constitution supports this. I'll give some of what I've been told and looked up.

16th Amendment
Allows Indirect and Direct taxes


There is the Excise tax and There is a tax on the income of corporate profit(public), Not taxes on the wages or income, which is private, of citizens.

here are some very interesting Supreme Court cases.

"Internal Revenue manual does not have force and effect of law so that any alleged failure to adhere to its provisions does not necessarily result in invalid assessment." Curley v. United States cite as 791 F. Supp (E.D.N.Y. 1992)


U.S. v. Tweel. 550 F 2d 297, at pages 299-300 it is stated; "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities. During oral argument counsel for the government stated that these procedures were "routine". If that is the case, we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is "routine", it should be corrected immediately."

What happens in court:


"Under the Adminstative Procedures Act, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Burden of proof means going forward with the evidence." [Bosma v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, C.A. 9, 1984, 754 F2d 804]


Meaning the courts/ plaintiff (the state or other wise) has to provide the law. In official paper.


26 CFR Part 31 CH.1 Subpart-E

COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES


26 CFR Section 31.3401(c)-1 Def. Employee
(a) The term employee includes every individual performing services if the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs such services is the legal relationship of employer and employee. The term includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the united states, a state, Territory, puerto Rico, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
26 USC 3401(d) Employer

"for the purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person.
26USC section 7701(a)(1) The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.


This explains who qualifies for a income tax. Now heres where it gets interesting. Try and look up 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-03 Edition) in the IRS code manual where it states that the Personal Income taxes on wage is Voluntary not manditory. Might be hard to find. I only read it through a friend who has been explaining this stuff to me. But try and find it.

Here is some hard evidence of NO Income tax on personal wages existing. Can anyone or anyone you know show me where this law might exsist? Have you ever seen it or met anyone who has seen it?

The 16th amendment to the Constitution gives the authority to Congress to establish and enforce income taxes. There are some frivolous arguments against the 16th amendment that have been struck down in court.

You need to learn what the words mean in the 16th amendment. Its all in the meanings. And in fact there have been numerous cases where people have won their court cases because the IRS cannot show that any law states you have to pay income taxes on your wages. So those cases in which people go to jail and end up paying, do not challenge the IRS about the actual law. Point in case, would you? if no, thats weird to me. Why wouldn't you ask to see the law that can supposedly ruin your life?

above i mentioned Direct and indirect taxes.


Although the meaning of "direct tax" has sometimes been questioned, it was always understood that taxes imposed by Congress could apply to, and be collected from, individual citizens, and that not every tax collected directly from the population was a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution.
One common mistake made by tax protesters is in assuming that the phrase "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" in the Constitution is a reference to any tax that is collected "directly" from the person on whom it is imposed, while "indirect" taxes such as "Duties, Imposts and Excises" are collected on goods during manufacture, or in transit, and the ultimate burden is passed along to someone else (usually the consumer). That is a definition of "direct" and "indirect" that is frequently used by economists, but it is not the meaning of "direct" and "indirect" that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use and that the tax was an excise or duty and not "direct." Of the four justices who heard the case, two (William Paterson and James Wilson) were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.
In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income tax was a constitutional "duty or excise" and not a "direct tax."
In Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 117 (1916), one of the appellants was an individual named Edwin Thorne, and he complained about the constitutionality of "a progressive tax on the income of individuals." The Supreme Court denied the appeal saying that "we need not now enter into an original consideration of the merits of these contentions because each and all of them were considered and adversely disposed of in Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. __, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236." (And the Brushaber decision upheld the constitutionality of an income tax under the 16th Amendment.)
More recent judges have rejected this argument as well:
[INDENT]"[Becraft's] position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws. ... We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment's authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens." [/INDENT]In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir., 1989).
[INDENT]"[W]e have rejected, on numerous occasions, the tax-protester argument that the federal income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned. See, e.g., Lively v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam)" [/INDENT]United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).
[INDENT]"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: .. .. (3) the income tax is a direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment, and Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759, modified, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895), is authority for that and other arguments against the government's power to impose income taxes on individuals.. .." [/INDENT]Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
[INDENT]"It is generally agreed that Article I of the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax the income of individuals, and that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement that such taxes be apportioned among the states."[/INDENT]In re: Michael FlemingSecora v. United States, 1997 WL 460162, at 6 (U.S.D.C. Neb.).
The meaning of "direct tax" urged by many tax protesters as a "tax imposed directly" would trivialize the Constitution, because it reduces the constitutional definition of "direct tax" to a mere question of how the tax is collected. So, if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employees for the wages they receive, that would be a "direct tax" according to the tax protester definition, but if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employers for wages paid (or a tax on banks for the payment of interest, or on corporations for the payment of dividends), that would be an "indirect tax" and constitutional, even though the net effect would be exactly the same (i.e., the employees or depositors or shareholders would bear the burden of the tax through reduced wages and salaries, interest, or dividends). The meaning of "direct tax" that has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court is much more sensible (as well as consistent with the known intent of the framers of the Constitution), because it focuses on what is being taxed (the value of property, but not transfers of property) rather than on how the tax is collected.
A final note:
Some courts have referred to the income tax as a "non-apportioned direct tax," which is unfortunate because it suggests that the income tax is a "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" that does not need to be apportioned, a suggestion that was explicitly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber. Under the Constitution, a "direct tax" must be apportioned, while an "indirect tax" must be uniform throughout the United States. One of the questions raised in Brushaber was whether the 16th Amendment created a type of tax that need be neither apportioned nor uniform, and the court rejected that possibility, stating (in a rather convoluted sentence):
[INDENT]"[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." [/INDENT]Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
The court then went on to hold that the income tax satisfied the requirement of geographical uniformity imposed by the Constitution, even though the rate of tax was not uniform on all incomes.

Have you ever paid a legal retainer plus legal fees for a court case that you weren't absolutely certain you'd win? Ask yourself if tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees is worth a challenge.

Secondly, as for the case law and the interpretation of "direct" and "indirect", I feel comfortable in my assumption that federal income taxation is not some bit of semantic legal trivia that could slip by unchallenged. If Congress truly lacked authority to impose and enforce taxes, two things would have happened by now: 1) we would have Supreme Court case law establishing the fact, and 2) a new constitutional amendment would pass in the blink of an eye authorizing Congress to do so.

Why am I so confident that such an amendment would pass so smoothly? Because 1) Congress cannot do anything without federal revenue, much of which is from income taxation, and 2) most States need to have balanced budgets, meaning that they need federal subsidies in order to operate without debt -- so it's in the states' interest for the federal government to be rich.

Finally, I want there to be a federal income tax, and I'm willing to pay it.

Why? I can give you a list of a million federal services I rely on on a daily basis. We all can.

If you really believe that you are not legally obligated to pay income tax, this year I urge you to file and claim that you have no taxable income - go on, give it a try.

If you guys are willing to pay taxes on your wages, by all means go for it. As for the rest, Its being afraid of what the IRS will do to you. People are no longer willing to address these things. What ever happen to the rebel rousers. Anyway, If the day comes when The IRS claims this law, I will no doubt object to it in court.

Funny how no one seems to care. What a disappointment we would be to our founding fathers.

I don't get wages. I get a contractual salary and profit sharing. Since a lot of my patients have Medicare, the revenue I generate by seeing patients actually comes from tax dollars that allow the elderly to get medical care.

They'd be proud. They fought against taxation without representation. I have voted for candidates who support income taxes, therefore I am being represented.

The term is rabble rouser, and it refers to someone who whips up the masses with incendiary language, playing on the fears and desires of the people - typically such orators ignore logical coherency and facts of reality in their fiery speeches.

In any case - yes, typically laws are upheld because people do not want to find themselves in unnecessary trouble. It's not that people are unwilling to address these things its that the benefits of not paying taxes (a few extra dollars in your pocket) do not outweigh the costs of not paying taxes (immense fines, possible prison time).

What you have missed is that the Supreme Court has upheld income tax. Now, you can either deny this with bits of information pasted together from the internet or you can go ask an attorney.

Seriously, though, you have every opportunity to challenge income tax law in court. Just file a tax return claiming that you have no taxable income. Take them to court. Best of luck. I'll send you a best wishes card to you in prison.



I think Aedes hit the nail on the head - the Founding Fathers objected to being taxed without representation. As we have representation as voters, they would be just fine with income tax.

Disappointing our Founding Fathers - well, yes, they would be terribly disappointed in their nation today, but not because we pay income tax.

Thats indirect public income. And what thats means is....... exactly what I want it to mean. Obviously we could go through process of elimination reducing whole paragraphs into one word statements. So here s a logical way of finding out if you are into paying a system that decides the distribution of funds from citizen ownership. Income Wages Paid to The IRS, In the past four years has added up to 900 billion yearly. A third of this goes to one of the couple Alphabet sectors that has any relation to Military Support. These costs add up to nearly less then a third of CNN financial reports. Check them out, oh and if you think they are accurate try again. Except what your saying is to let this show go on and forget that the United States of America is looking at tight pockets soon. What i fail to see is any ideas?


So I feel that raising the question of what exactly in our constitution kept us from allowing a private bank from shaking and moving our money and saying they just cant keep track of all the money we invest in their ...... faith? not for me........... Service?.............. we'll be with you in 4 years................ Protection?............ over my dead body.






You look around your environment and tell me the only reason you feel your being represented is because of ability to play a mathematical game. You understand the rules enough to support the family. Excellent. So what Are we going to let happen to the lazy? well they'll manage. Only reality has showed for hundreds of years that just some people dont. So is it really about the thousand upon thousand of custom upgrades that make the game complicated so that any ideas about changing the levels is either feared by some or To good. The government is just to good at their job. Everyone says we get by and thats about it.

Thats the $1,000,000 dollar question ladies and gentlemen. Hey there you in the goofy tie, how would you like a million dollars?
50%State tax in All countries......I mean States.

There are rules of life as well, and I understand them well enough to know that supporting the family is more important than wasting my time trying to change a system that I don't oppose.

Furthermore, since all you're interested in is legal technicalities (rather than principles), you would clearly be 100% content paying taxes if a constitutional amendment passed tomorrow unambiguously codifying the enforceability of income taxes along with an unambiguous definition of income.