Is U.S. income tax invalid?

Just because someone 4 putted a par 3 hole in golf doesn't make the score 15-love.

US taxpayers are not foreign corporations. No court will ever rule that they are.

This ruling has nothing to do with the voluntary/involuntary argument. It merely states that foreign corporations are entitled to their deductions even if they file for them after 18 months. It in no way allows a foreign corporation to avoid taxes on profits once they have been reduced by the deductions. The IRS also allows US citizens to take all their valid deductions. In Swallows the owner of the corporation was a Mexican citizen and the company was incorporated in Barbados

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/SwallowsHolding.TC.WPD.pdf

0 Replies

Tryagain wrote:

The cracks are beginning to appear! 15-love.

I don't normally comment on spelling and grammatical errors, but I can't help but point out your mistake here: the correct spelling is "crackpots," not "cracks."

0 Replies

Parados (our sports correspondent) wrote, "Just because someone 4 putted a par 3 hole in golf doesn't make the score 15-love."

Too true blue, that's a birdie!

Joe from the windy city, proved his critics wrong when he wrote, "I don't normally comment on spelling and grammatical errors, but I can't help but point out your mistake here: the correct spelling is "crackpots," not "cracks."

He does indeed have a sense of humor. May I respectfully remind you; that was Setanta's downfall.

0 Replies

It's the legal definition. You can see problems in the way the law defines murder too. It doesn't change the way the law defines it. Nor does it absolve you from the crime just because you don't like the definition.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It's the legal definition. You can see problems in the way the law defines murder too. It doesn't change the way the law defines it. Nor does it absolve you from the crime just because you don't like the definition.

That is such a good statement, I may use it as a future quote.

Did you know that if you type the subject heading into Google you will get 1,690,000 hits, and A2K will have two listed in the top three!

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

The pendulum has begun to swing the other way

Jan. 31, 2007

Gov. Crist proposes overhaul of property taxes

TALLAHASSEE -- Saying people are "screaming for relief," Gov. Charlie Crist proposed a wide-ranging plan Tuesday to limit property taxes, including giving breaks to businesses and to homeowners who move.
Crist said he wants to hold a special election this year to ask voters to overhaul the property-tax system. Probably his most far-reaching idea would cap annual tax increases for businesses, rental properties and second homes.

"What I am concerned about is keeping Florida affordable," Crist said.
The package, if approved, could save taxpayers as much as $2 billion in its first year. It comes after property owners across the state, including in Volusia County, flooded city and county budget hearings in 2006 with complaints about soaring taxes.

Jim Cameron, a vice president of The Chamber, Daytona Beach/Halifax Area, said businesses and rental properties need tax relief. They are not covered by a 1992 constitutional amendment, known as the Save Our Homes amendment, that shields many homeowners from big tax increases.

"We need to bring those scales back in balance between homes and businesses," Cameron said.
But at least some of Crist's proposals could run into opposition from cities and counties that depend heavily on property taxes to provide services.
Volusia County Chairman Frank Bruno said he can support Crist's package but wonders about the impact on local government.

"I would love for the state to do that," Bruno said. "But what is the final result? What is that going to ultimately mean for our tax base? How much money will be available to provide services and put in the infrastructure for new growth that people are demanding?"

Crist and a top official of the Florida Chamber of Commerce dismissed arguments that local governments won't have enough money to meet their needs. Crist said counties and cities have had an "explosion of more money."

"We need to put big government on a big diet," said Mark Wilson, executive vice president of the state chamber.
Crist's proposals will go to the Legislature, which is already holding public hearings across the state about possible changes to the tax system. Lawmakers could approve or change the proposals and then send them to voters as constitutional amendments.

Crist would offer relief to businesses and other types of non-homesteaded property by capping increases in assessed values at 3 percent a year. He also would provide a small-business tax exemption for "tangible personal property," such as computers and equipment.
Crist would provide relief to homeowners primarily by allowing them to receive benefits of the Save Our Homes cap when they move. Currently, homeowners lose the Save Our Homes protection when they move, meaning they can face huge tax increases.

Also, Crist wants to allow local governments to double the homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000.
Maureen France, a leader of Volusia Tax Reform, a group that supports revamping the tax system, said Crist's proposal sounds like a good starting point. Ultimately, she said any changes have to be comprehensive.

But Daytona Beach City Manager Jim Chisholm expressed frustration at what he called another "haphazard" proposal from Tallahassee that could harm local governments.

Chisholm said past tax changes have benefited specific groups but have led to inequities and unfair taxes for the rest of the state.
"My hope is that this time, they don't do one thing to make somebody happy, but rather find a system that's fair to everybody," Chisholm said.

Staff Writer John Bozzo contributed to this report.

Who Gets Tax Relief?
Gov. Charlie Crist proposed a property-tax plan Tuesday that includes:
Capping increases in the assessed values of businesses, rental buildings and other non-homesteaded properties at 3 percent a year. Estimated first-year savings: $600 million.

Allowing homeowners to keep benefits of the Save Our Homes tax cap when they move. Estimated first-year savings: $200 million.

Offering a small-business tax exemption on "tangible personal property," such as computers and equipment. Estimated annual savings: $200 million.

Allowing local governments to double the homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000. Estimated annual savings: As much as $1 billion.

Source: Florida governor's office

0 Replies

Tryagain wrote:

He does indeed have a sense of humor. May I respectfully remind you; that was Setanta's downfall.

Prove it.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Tryagain wrote:
He does indeed have a sense of humor. May I respectfully remind you; that was Setanta's downfall.

Prove it.

Sheesh! Can we start with an easy one, such as how to cure world hunger for $1.50c?

THE MAIN PROPOSITIONS OF THIS THREAD ARE:

1) The 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the "income tax amendment") was fraudulently and illegally proclaimed to be ratified in 1913. Exhaustive legal research from both state and national archives documented conclusively that the amendment did not even come close to being legally approved by the required number of states.

The Courts have refused to hear this issue.
"[Defendant] Stahl's claim that ratification of the 16th Amendment was fraudulently certified constitutes a political question because we could not undertake independent resolution of this issue without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government...."
U.S. v Stahl (1986), 792 F2d 1438

2) Filing a federal income tax return is, in fact, voluntary, because there is no statute or regulation that requires the vast majority of U.S. citizens to file and pay income taxes -- or to have taxes withheld from the money they earn.

Neither the IRS nor the Congress can cite an authorizing law or regulation.

3) Citizens cannot "voluntarily" file a federal income tax return without surrendering their 5th amendment right not to bear witness against themselves.

You can be criminally prosecuted for your "voluntary" return.

Further irrefutable evidence will be submitted for your edification in due course.

0 Replies

The main propositions you posit Tryagain are all complete nonsense..

You might actually want to READ Stahl before you post a statement so clearly out of context..

The court says..

Quote:

We conclude that the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts.

2.) Try Title 26. It has been pointed out again and again to tax protestors and they keep coming back with the same bogus claim. Repeating it again doesn't make it valid now.

Quote:

Alaska Computer Brokers v. Morton (D Alaska unpub 9/6/95) 76 AFTR2d 6458, 95 USTC para 50510; Hodges v. CIR (7/6/98) TC Memo 1998-242; the IRC, at 26 USC 1, says clearly that a tax is "imposed on the taxable income of every individual", which pretty much negatives the notion that income tax is either voluntary or contractual or applicable only to certain special populations.

3.)

Quote:

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 83 (2 d Cir. 1979) - The court said that "the Fifth Amendment privilege does not immunize all witnesses from testifying. Only those who assert as to each particular question that the answer to that question would tend to incriminate them are protected . . . [T]he questions in the income tax return are neutral on their face . . . [h]ence privilege may not be claimed against all disclosure on an income tax return."

United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 252 (10 th Cir. 1979) - Noting that the Supreme Court had established "that the self-incrimination privilege can be employed to protect the taxpayer from revealing the information as to an illegal source of income, but does not protect him from disclosing the amount of his income," the court said Brown made "an illegal effort to stretch the Fifth Amendment to include a taxpayer who wishes to avoid filing a return."

United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1241 (9 th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980) - The court affirmed a failure to file conviction, noting that the taxpayer "did not show that his response to the tax form questions would have been self-incriminating. He cannot, therefore, prevail on his Fifth Amendment claim."

United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28, 30 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1064 (1973) - The court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment claim because of his "error in . . . his blanket refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or expenses."

Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5 th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1153 (1995) - The court affirmed tax assessments and penalties for failure to file returns, failure to pay taxes, and filing a frivolous return. The court also imposed sanctions for pursuing a frivolous case. The taxpayers had failed to provide any information on their tax return about income and expenses, instead claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege on each line calling for financial information.

0 Replies

This situation is unique in so far as the plaintiff has yet to substantiate the claim, yet the respondent has already filed the rebuttal.

The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law of the system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. However, the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution and, under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, laws enacted by Congress and treaties to which the U.S. is a party. These form the basis for federal laws under the federal constitution in the United States, circumscribing the boundaries of the jurisdiction of federal law and the laws in the fifty U.S. states and territories.

If you find yourself agreeing with that

In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, administrative law, statutes, and the common law (which includes case law).

The most important source of law is the United States Constitution. All other law falls under, and is subordinate to, that document. No law may contradict the United States Constitution.

For example, if Congress passes a statute that conflicts with the constitution, the Supreme Court may find that law unconstitutional, and strike it down.

If you find yourself still nodding in agreement:

These are the facts the government wishes suppressed

Proposition #1

The issue of the fraudulent ratification of the 16th amendment has never been decided by a court of law. The courts have instead tossed the issue into the lap of Congress as a "political question," even though fraud is a clear issue for judicial review, not a political question.

A brief report printed by the Congressional Research Service in 1985 states up front that, "The report does not attempt to rebut specific factual allegations?." It then goes on to make the astonishing assertion that the actions of a government official must be presumed to be correct and cannot be judged or overturned by the courts! (John Ripy, "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment." CRS, 1985.)

An attorney speaking for Senator Orin Hatch in 1984 offered to pay former tax investigator William Benson a fortune not to publish his research proving that the 16th amendment did not even come close to being legally ratified by the required number of states in 1913.

Philander Knox, Secretary of State from 1909 to 1913 during the Taft administration, proclaimed the 16th amendment to be ratified just a few days before he left office in 1913, to make way for the Wilson administration, even though he knew it had not been legally ratified.

Knox had for many years been the primary attorney for the richest men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and the Vanderbilts. He had created for them the largest cartel in the world, then was appointed, at their request, as Attorney General in the McKinley/Roosevelt administrations, where he refused to enforce the Sherman anti-trust laws against the cartel he had just created.

The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen. Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and grandfather and namesake of Nelson A. Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if Knox had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.

Example: Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Knox counted Kentucky as having approved it.

Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it meant just the opposite of what was submitted to the states by Congress, but Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment.

Example: Minnesota did not submit any results or copy of their vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as approving the amendment.

Legal scholars have agreed that if any state violated provisions of its own state constitution in the ratification process, its approval would be null and void. At least 20 states were guilty of serious violations of their constitutions. For example, Tennessee's constitution provided that the state legislature could not act upon any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution submitted by Congress until after the next state legislative elections. Yet the Tennessee legislature acted on the proposed 16th amendment the same month it was received and before any elections.

Judges have been extraordinarily unwilling to allow defendants in "failure to file" cases to present evidence or testimony of expert researchers regarding the constitutionality of the 16th amendment.

Why?....Because it would provide a De facto case.

More shocking revelations will follow!

0 Replies

Tryagain wrote:

This situation is unique in so far as the plaintiff has yet to substantiate the claim, yet the respondent has already filed the rebuttal.

The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law of the system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. However, the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution and, under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, laws enacted by Congress and treaties to which the U.S. is a party. These form the basis for federal laws under the federal constitution in the United States, circumscribing the boundaries of the jurisdiction of federal law and the laws in the fifty U.S. states and territories.

If you find yourself agreeing with that

In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, administrative law, statutes, and the common law (which includes case law).

The most important source of law is the United States Constitution. All other law falls under, and is subordinate to, that document. No law may contradict the United States Constitution.

For example, if Congress passes a statute that conflicts with the constitution, the Supreme Court may find that law unconstitutional, and strike it down.

If you find yourself still nodding in agreement:

These are the facts the government wishes suppressed

Proposition #1

The issue of the fraudulent ratification of the 16th amendment has never been decided by a court of law. The courts have instead tossed the issue into the lap of Congress as a "political question," even though fraud is a clear issue for judicial review, not a political question.

False. If you agree that case law counts then you have to examine the sheer number of cases where the court has said unequivocally that the 16th amendment is part of the constitution and beyond review. I have cited a number of cases previously on this thread.

Quote:

A brief report printed by the Congressional Research Service in 1985 states up front that, "The report does not attempt to rebut specific factual allegations?." It then goes on to make the astonishing assertion that the actions of a government official must be presumed to be correct and cannot be judged or overturned by the courts! (John Ripy, "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment." CRS, 1985.)

A book is not on your list of what constitutes law. Case law and the constitution overrule some silly book any day of the week.

Quote:

An attorney speaking for Senator Orin Hatch in 1984 offered to pay former tax investigator William Benson a fortune not to publish his research proving that the 16th amendment did not even come close to being legally ratified by the required number of states in 1913.

Irrelevent since case law disputes this ludicrous claim.

Quote:

Philander Knox, Secretary of State from 1909 to 1913 during the Taft administration, proclaimed the 16th amendment to be ratified just a few days before he left office in 1913, to make way for the Wilson administration, even though he knew it had not been legally ratified.

Ignores the facts of the case and the legal ruling Knox got from legal council.

Quote:

Knox had for many years been the primary attorney for the richest men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and the Vanderbilts. He had created for them the largest cartel in the world, then was appointed, at their request, as Attorney General in the McKinley/Roosevelt administrations, where he refused to enforce the Sherman anti-trust laws against the cartel he had just created.

red herring

Quote:

The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen. Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and grandfather and namesake of Nelson A. Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if Knox had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.

But none of the states has ever disputed the fact that they ratified it nor have the states said they want to take back the 16th amendment. The variations are slight. Puncuation and spelling errors. Nothing to radically change the meaning.

Quote:

Example: Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Knox counted Kentucky as having approved it.

2 states initially rejected the amendment but then later voted to ratify it. This argument that Knox counted the rejection as ratification is false.

Quote:

Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it meant just the opposite of what was submitted to the states by Congress, but Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment.

States did NOT change the amendment. Provide the ratified copy from Oklahoma if this is true. Again. Oklahoma did NOT argue at the time that the final amendment was different from what they ratified.

Quote:

Example: Minnesota did not submit any results or copy of their vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as approving the amendment.

Minnesota informed Knox of the ratification. There is no requirement that they inform anyone of the vote in written fashion. The vote was done in a public forum.

Quote:

Legal scholars have agreed that if any state violated provisions of its own state constitution in the ratification process, its approval would be null and void. At least 20 states were guilty of serious violations of their constitutions. For example, Tennessee's constitution provided that the state legislature could not act upon any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution submitted by Congress until after the next state legislative elections. Yet the Tennessee legislature acted on the proposed 16th amendment the same month it was received and before any elections.

Judges have been extraordinarily unwilling to allow defendants in "failure to file" cases to present evidence or testimony of expert researchers regarding the constitutionality of the 16th amendment.

Why?....Because it would provide a De facto case.

More shocking revelations will follow!

Actually the courts did listen to all this crap. They decided it had no merit. Do you believe in case law or not? Benson testified in this case to almost every point you have outlined Tryagain. The courts rejected it then and have no reason to revisit the arguments because it IS decided case law.
US vs House and House - 1985

Quote:

The sixteenth amendment and the tax laws passed pursuant to it have been followed by the courts for over half a century. They represent the recognized law of the land.

Because the sixteenth amendment was duly certified by the Secretary of State, because defendants have not alleged that the minor variations in capitalization, punctuation and wording of the various state resolutions are materially different in purpose or effect from the language of the congressional joint resolution proposing adoption of the sixteenth amendment, and because the sixteenth amendment has been recognized and acted upon since 1913, the Court rejects defendants' argument that the sixteenth amendment is not a part of the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Does case law matter or not? Case law has listened to the 16th amendment argument and denied its merits. Until you come up with something new it is decided and the courts won't listen to the argument. The constitution doesn't say you can keep bringing falacious and frivilous arguments to the court.

0 Replies

By the way. The Congress submitted the amendments to the states on July 12th 1909. Tennessee didn't ratify it until April 7th 1911.

That is one LOOOONNNNNGGGGG month if your source is to be believed.

The crackpots will say anything and hope that someone will believe them without doing any checking.

0 Replies

As all of us who study Greek drama know:
Parados: Passage on the left or right through which the chorus entered the orchestra.

parados wrote:

By the way. The Congress submitted the amendments to the states on July 12th 1909. Tennessee didn't ratify it until April 7th 1911.

That is one LOOOONNNNNGGGGG month if your source is to be believed.

The crackpots will say anything and hope that someone will believe them without doing any checking.

Please then explain:

The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen. Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and grandfather and namesake of Nelson A. Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if Knox had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.

How it was counted in 1909 if it was not ratified till 1911?

Let me suggest; you are singing from the wrong song sheet. However, I do admire your single minded tenacity to prove that the founding fathers wished this penile servitude upon the citizens.

Proposition #2

Juries have been acquitting defendants in failure-to-file income tax return cases due to lack of demonstrable evidence that there is any law or regulation that requires it.

An increasing number of employers have stopped withholding taxes from their workers, and stopped filing W-2s and 1099s for the same reason.

Unless one is a foreigner working in the U.S., or a U.S. citizen earning money abroad, one is not liable for the federal income tax.

The OMB Number on Form 1040 is cross-referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations to the section covering taxes by resident aliens, which, therefore, doesn't apply to most Americans.

Responding to an inquiry by a constituent who was a tax consultant, Sen. Daniel Inouye told him that based on research performed by the Congressional Research Service, no provision of the Internal Revenue Code requires an individual to pay income taxes. He then went on to warn that Section 7201 sets forth numerous penalties for not paying income taxes owed. However -

The failure-to-file law applies to alcohol-tobacco-firearms taxes, (Section 7201), not to income taxes, and convictions are based on the mis-application of the alcohol-tobacco- firearm regulations.

No law requires employees to provide a Social Security Number to an employer, nor for an employer to demand one from an employee.

Should any anti-democracy supporter of the government still be undecided, just wait for the next instalment

0 Replies

The 16th amendment was passed by Congress in 1909. There is no constitutional time limit on the time period for states to ratify an amendment. Tennessee ratifed the amendment in 1911. In 1913 enough state ratifications were confirmed to make the amendment part of the constitution. Knox didn't count Tennessee in 1909. Knox didn't count enough states for ratification until 1913.

You keep repeating things that are out of date and sincerely misguided Tryagain. There have been a number of convictions in the last 2 years of people and companies for failing to withold income taxes.

Many of your other points have already been answered. Perhaps you could address US vs House and House and how it dealt with the 16th amendment arguments that you said the courts have never looked at. When errors are pointed out to you Tryagain, you never address them. You move to another topic then another and another before repeating your earlier arguments without dealing with any of the refuting evidence.

Congratulations on one of meanings of "parados". Few people reference that meaning.

0 Replies

Quote:

Proposition #2

Juries have been acquitting defendants in failure-to-file income tax return cases due to lack of demonstrable evidence that there is any law or regulation that requires it.

Please cite the cases where this has occurred.

I am curious to see if you can actually come up with one that actually will be as you say it is. I am guessing not but suprise me.

0 Replies

Surprize-Surprize - Dare a Cesare quel che è di Cesare.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

HEALTH WARNING!

Some readers of tender dispositions may find the following triumph of justice over autocracy disturbing, and should turn away now.

Woman triumphs over IRS
in million-dollar tax case
Federal jury acquits FedEx pilot who questioned legality of levy

© WorldNetDaily.com

A federal jury in Memphis has acquitted a woman charged by the Internal Revenue Service of conspiring to evade taxes on nearly $1 million in income.

Jurors on Friday declared FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin, 58, not guilty of evading taxes, though the question of how the bill would be paid was left unsettled following the five-day trial.

"I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," defense attorney Robert Bernhoft of Milwaukee told the Commercial Appeal newspaper. For her part, Kuglin said she felt the verdict was in line. " I feel justified," she told the paper.
Kuglin was charged with six counts of tax evasion, for which she could have received up to 30 years in prison had she been convicted. Government prosecutors claimed she filed false W-4 forms for the years 1996 through 2001.

A FedEx pilot for nearly 18 years, Kuglin said she had paid taxes like most other wage earners until about a decade ago, when the paper said she began to question the tax code.
She said she researched legal documents, court cases and the tax code itself, but claimed she could not find a specific section that stated she is liable to pay taxes. Rather, she found a series of contradictions, she told the Appeal.

In 1995 Kuglin wrote to the IRS twice with questions about her obligation to pay taxes, but said she never received a response.
Federal prosecutors said Kuglin, however, did have an opportunity to sit down and discuss her obligations with the IRS but failed to do so.
Nevertheless, defense attorney Larry Becraft of Huntsville, Ala., who has a reputation for defending tax-related cases, said Kuglin decided mandatory payment of income taxes "did not apply to her." Following Friday's verdict, he declared the federal tax code "at best is a walking due-process violation."

Barbara Snodgrass, one of the jurors, told the paper the panel chose to acquit Kuglin because "we all felt that the prosecution didn't prove its case."
Kuglin left open the possibility of future IRS cooperation, without admitting she owes the agency money. "I will pay all the taxes for which I am liable," she told the paper.

Kuglin's case echoes complaints about the IRS made by Bob Schulz, a leader in the "tax honesty" movement.
In March 2002 Schulz, WorldNetDaily reported, sponsored a "Truth in Taxation" hearing in Washington, D.C., which featured a number of prominent figures in the tax-reform movement.
The forum was held despite the cancellation of previously scheduled appearances by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., and officials from the IRS and Justice Department.

Despite the lack of official sanction, Schulz declared the event a success and said he had "brought to public attention" allegations that the government has "intentionally and systematically conspired to deprive the American People of our Constitutional rights. "

"The hearing was but another step in the people's determination to get to the truth regarding the fraudulent origin and operation of the Federal Reserve system, the unconstitutional creation of the Internal Revenue Service and the illegal operations of our nation's income tax system," he said in a statement following the forum.

The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, said, 'If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the people, [the people] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquillity.'

Nota bene:

"At first they sought to discover his location in No Man's Land; but when an officer looking over the parapet through a periscope was struck full in the back of the head with a rifle bullet which passed through his skull and fell to the bottom of the trench they realized that it was beyond the parados rather than the parapet that they should search."

However, in this neck of the woods it usually refers to; the paragraph after uno.

0 Replies

Vernice Kuglin was found not guilty of willful violation.

That doesn't mean she owes no taxes. She will still be required to pay her back taxes with the penalites. The judge even reminded her of that at the end of the trial. She can no longer claim she doesn't know she has to file nor can she claim that the IRS failed to respond. Her lawyer stated she will be working on paying those back taxes as well as filing correct forms.

It is an interesting read.
Court transcript can be found here
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Kuglin-2PagesLandscape.pdf

I think the only thing that got her off is she mailed a letter to the IRS asking where the law made her liable and kept a copy of it. It created doubt as to her willfulness in violating the law. She got lucky with the jury.

One can only guess what the penalities and interest are going to add up to for her let alone her lawyer costs etc. She would have been better off paying her taxes.

0 Replies

U.S. v Conklin (1994), WL 504211 (10th Cir. Colo.)

Do you want to enjoy BIG bucks..free!
No one has been able to collect the $50,000 reward offered by William Conklin to anyone who can:

1) Show how to file a federal income tax return without waiving one's 5th amendment rights, and

2) Identify what statute in the Internal Revenue Code makes a typical worker liable to pay an income tax.

Can you???

0 Replies

More of the same there Tryagain.

Quote:

Walder v. Conklin -- Conklin offered a $50,000 reward to anybody who could prove that his 5th Amendment defense was bogus. Walder proved that it was bogus, and sued when Conklin welched. The court ruled that Conklin has structured his argument so that he was the "sole arbitor" of whether he had to pay or not. Conklin, thus, decided to welch -- exactly like Irwin Schiff had welched in the case of Newman vs. Schiff (more pot-kettle-black). This opinion does not mention the Fifth Amendment except in the context of Conklin welching on his bet.

http://www.quatlosers.com/bill_conklin.htm

I haven't found the 1994 ruling in the 10th but it is dealt with at Quatlosers.

The courts have consistently ruled that filing a tax return does NOT, let me repeat it again, DOES NOT violate your 5th amendment rights.

The 5th amendment rights are to prevent you from being forced to testify against yourself about a crime. Unless you are committing a crime while filing your tax return there is no 5th amendment to violate.

If a police officer stops you for speeding can you claim a 5th amendment right to not show the officer your driver's license? Try it some time. I guarantee you won't like the result. The 5th amendment ONLY works if the answer will admit you committed a crime or likely committed one.

0 Replies

Thank you, good linkwell good if you want to rain on my parade and utterly destroy the last shred of creditability wait! Just in from a supporter

More bad news for the IRS:

April 4, 2006

Data Expert Prevails in Lawsuit Against IRS Secrecy

IRS Must Abide by 1976 Agreement and Provide Performance Data by Tax Deadline

SEATTLE - A federal court has ruled in favor of a widely recognized researcher seeking detailed statistics from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about how the agency enforces the nation's tax laws. Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered the IRS to turn over statistical data to Susan B. Long, a professor at Syracuse University and co-director of the non-profit research organization Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

Long had sought monthly statistical reports from the IRS under the terms of a court order issued in 1976 in a case she filed to compel disclosure of IRS audit and examination data. After the 1976 court order, Long used IRS data to report on, and often criticize, the IRS's performance for nearly 30 years. In mid-2004, however, the agency stopped complying with the longstanding court order and refused to disclose the information. Long returned to court in January 2006, represented by Scott Nelson with Public Citizen in Washington, D.C., and Eric M. Stahl and Michele Earl-Hubbard with Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Seattle.

Pechman ruled Monday that the 1976 order remains enforceable and that IRS claims that producing the data it regularly compiles would be burdensome are unsupported. The court rejected the IRS's argument that the production of statistical data would violate a statute prohibiting public release of tax return information about individual taxpayers, because there was no evidence that the statistics could be used to identify any taxpayer. The ruling stated that, "ecause Ms. Long seeks to disseminate the information sought in this proceeding to the public, there would be a public benefit from disclosure of the records sought." It also found that, "Ms. Long's interest in this matter stretches back 30 years and has both public interest and scholarly components."

Pechman ordered production of the requested reports within 14 days, placing the IRS under the same compliance deadline (April 17) that the rest of the nation faces for tax returns. The court also ruled that Long is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees for enforcing the order.

"It is essential that a powerful agency like the IRS live by the law," Long said today in response to TRAC's legal victory. "This ruling, which requires the agency to abide by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and provide TRAC with information about how it is collecting the nation's taxes, is a win for the American people, who want to assure themselves that the IRS is operating in a fair and effective manner."

Long is a professor of management information and decision sciences at Syracuse University's Martin J. Whitman School of Management. Since 1989, she has also been co-director of TRAC, which provides the public with detailed information about the operation of hundreds of federal agencies, including the IRS.

Scott Nelson of Public Citizen lauded the ruling. "The court's decision not only vindicates the public's right to information but also serves as a powerful reminder to agencies that the courts can hold them accountable and that they act at their peril if they disregard court orders."

Do you now wish to fly the flag of freedom?

0 Replies

So the IRS isn't a secret society. I knew that already.

0 Replies

Is U.S. income tax invalid?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know