Is U.S. income tax invalid?

This kind of practice is ancient, if not honorable. For all time, liars have run fabrications up the flagpole to see what their targets will buy into and then take what they can get.

"You are so blinded by your own ignorance you can't see that others have realized you are too ignorant to listen to reason."


What may I ask is keeping you?

Richard Saunders wrote:

I dont think these discussions will ever amount to either side convincing the other.

Just because you believe the world is flat doesn't make your argument valid or reasonable.

Richard Saunders wrote:

I dont think these discussions will ever amount to either side convincing the other.

For just as much as Parados believes the income tax and federal reserve are legal, and done for the good of the country, I believe just as strongly in the opposite viewpoint that they are not legal and harm the country.

Just because you believe the world is flat doesn't make your argument valid or reasonable.

"The good of the country?" What a moronic thing to say while demanding that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. How would it be "good for the country" if our government had no revenues? I see someone confusing their simplistic greed with what is "good for the country." Taxes are the lifeblood of our country. Without taxes our country would wither and die. The founders said pretty much the same thing 220 some years ago.

Tryagain wrote:

"I dont think these discussions will ever amount to either side convincing the other."

I realize you will always believe the world is flat Try. I am not trying to convince you. I am showing others how silly your arguments are in light of facts that can be checked by anyone.

Quote:

It is clear all the others have either seen the light or given up, only Parados clings to the IRS banner, and even he cannot bring himself to admit he has never been given the opportunity to vote for personal taxes, or any taxes for that matter…

Nothing is clear to you. You are so blinded by your own ignorance you can't see that others have realized you are too ignorant to listen to reason.

Tryagain wrote:

The other 2.3 million words are devoted to cunningly suggesting that the code imposes a tax on all receipts of all Americans, while never actually saying that anywhere, (since, of course, it can't).

There it is, another bald faced lie that has been refuted widely but some people in spite of being told again and again can't figure out the simplest thing.


The code DOES impose a tax on incomes. Let me cite it for you.

Quote:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
§ 1. Tax imposed


(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of?-
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
...

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

...

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
...
(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

Not only does the tax code impose a tax on incomes it uses the word impose that you claimed it doesn't. Your words are so obviously false they are worth repeating here.

Tryagain wrote:

The other 2.3 million words are devoted to cunningly suggesting that the code imposes a tax on all receipts of all Americans, while never actually saying that anywhere, (since, of course, it can't).

Anyone can google Title 26 and look up the chapter I just quoted. There is nothing cunningly suggestive about it. It is pretty clearly what you said isn't there is actually there using the same exact words you said it couldn't use.

You're close on your Burke quote. I'm curious... just what are you doing?

I'm curious to know if the anti-income tax jokers in this thread did nor did not pay their income tax assessment this week.

.....................It is only the ?'personal' income tax I question the legitimacy of'.......

..................
1. There is NO LAW that requires most Americans to file a tax return, pay the federal income tax nor have the tax withheld from their earnings.

2. In 1913, the 16th Amendment (the "income tax" Amendment) was fraudulently
and illegally declared to be ratified by a lame-duck Secretary of State
just days before leaving office.

3. Also in 1913, Congress created the Federal Reserve System, a banking cartel organized by the largest private banks in the country. By 1933, the FRS had been granted the power to:

• • Fabricate money out of thin air.
• • Charge interest to the Government for the use of the Fed's currency.
• • Receive taxes to pay the interest on the debt created, to be paid with the American People's gold and silver.

This is all in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

NOTE: Most people do not know that the "Fed" is a privately owned
corporation functioning as a central bank. Nor do they know that the monetary policies of the FRS (i.e., its foreign exchange and domestic open market operations) have never been fully audited.

4. Those who file a Form 1040 "voluntarily" waive their 5th Amendment (Miranda) right not to bear witness against themselves.

5. The IRS routinely violates citizens' 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure without a warrant issued by a court upon probable cause and supported by oath and affirmation. IRS levies and seizures are unenforceable because the IRS is UNABLE AND UNWILLING to swear under oath that a law has been broken or that there is probable cause of a violation.

6. The IRS, as standard operating procedure, routinely violates citizens' due process rights in its administrative procedures and operates far outside the law. The courts cannot be relied upon to strike down such actions.

Ask the IRS to SHOW YOU WHAT LAW REQUIRES YOU TO FILE A FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN............ .

Tryagain wrote:

.....................It is only the ?'personal' income tax I question the legitimacy of'.......

Per the IRS:

"B. The Meaning of Income: Taxable Income and Gross Income

1. Contention: Wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income.

This argument asserts that wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income, because there is allegedly no taxable gain when a person "exchanges" labor for money. Under this theory, wages are not taxable income because people have basis in their labor equal to the fair market value of the wages they receive; thus, there is no gain to be taxed. A variation of this argument misconstrues section 1341, which deals with computations of tax where a taxpayer restores a substantial amount held under claim of right, to somehow allow a deduction claim for personal services rendered.

Another similar argument asserts that wages are not subject to taxation where a person has obtained funds in exchange for their time. Under this theory, wages are not taxable because the Code does not specifically tax these so-called "time reimbursement transactions." Some take a different approach and argue that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain or profit.

The Law: For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, "an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived."

Section 1341 and the cases interpreting it require taxpayers to return funds previously reported as income before they can claim a deduction under claim of right. To have the right to a deduction, the taxpayer should appear to have an unrestricted right to the income in question. See Dominion Resources, Inc. v. United States, 219 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2000). It is a frivolous argument to claim a section 1341 deduction when there has been no repayment by the taxpayer of an amount previously reported as income. The Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2004-29, 2004-1 C.B. 627, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.

The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax. For a further discussion of the constitutionality of the federal income tax laws, see section I.D. of this outline.

All compensation for personal services, no matter what the form of payment, must be included in gross income. This includes salary or wages paid in cash, as well as the value of property and other economic benefits received because of services performed, or to be performed in the future. Furthermore, criminal and civil penalties have been imposed against individuals relying upon this frivolous argument.

In November 2004, a federal district court in Ohio barred Michael A. Allamby from preparing federal tax returns and representing taxpayers before the IRS. Mr. Allamby erroneously interpreted the instructions to certain federal tax forms as requiring individuals to report their wages as income only if they invested the wages to earn income. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04733.htm; see also 2004 TNT 215-24 (Nov. 4, 2004). Also, in May 2005, a federal district court in Louisiana permanently barred Richard A. Fuselier and Richard J. Ortt and their organization, Compensation Consultants, from preparing tax returns and promoting tax schemes, such as the "not for profit" scheme, which was based on the premise that wages cannot be taxed. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/March/05_tax_085.htm; see also 2005 TNT 94-16 (May 16, 2005).

In January 2005, a federal district court in California permanently enjoined Joseph O. Saladino, founder of an organization known as the Freedom and Privacy Committee, from promoting two schemes: the "claim of right" program and the "corporation sole" scheme (discussed below in this outline). See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv05005.htm; see also 2005 TNT 15-22 (Jan. 24, 2005). Also, in January 2005, a federal district court in North Carolina permanently barred Frank D. Perkinson from selling the "claim of right" program and the "corporation sole" scheme. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/January/05_tax_005.htm; see also 2005 TNT 5-16 (Jan. 6, 2005).

In June 2006, Richard M. Blackstock was convicted on thirty-two counts of assisting in the preparation of fraudulent returns based on his involvement in filing various returns claiming deductions for wages, salaries and other compensation under the frivolous "claim of right" theory. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2006/txdv06Blackstock_USAO_OK.wpd; see also 2006 TNT129-31 (Jun. 23, 2006).

Relevant Case Law:

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955) - referring to the statute's words "income derived from any source whatever," the Supreme Court stated, "this language was used by Congress to exert in this field ?'the full measure of its taxing power.' . . . And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted."

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) - the Supreme Court found that payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which a taxpayer has complete dominion.

Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) - the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Cheek's conviction of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns and willfully attempting to evade income taxes solely on the basis of erroneous jury instructions. The Court noted, however, that Cheek's argument, that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional, "is unsound, not because Cheek's constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the [law regarding willfulness in criminal cases] does not support such a position." Id. (emphasis added). On remand, Cheek was convicted on all counts and sentenced to jail for a year and a day. Cheek v. United States, 3 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1112 (1994).

United States v. Becker, 965 F.2d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 1992) - the court found defendant's contention that wages are not income to be "ridiculous."

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991) - in rejecting defendant's argument that the revenue laws of the United States do not impose a tax on income, the court recognized the "Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on all income."

United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029 (1990) - the court stated that "[e]very court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income."

Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981) - the court rejected as "meritless" the taxpayer's contention that the "exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction . . . ."

Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F. 2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1985) - the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court's holding against the taxpayer's argument that taxing wage and salary income is a violation of the constitution because compensation for labor is an exchange, not gain. The Fifth Circuit also fined the taxpayer for bringing a frivolous appeal.

United States v. White, 769 F. 2d 511 (8th Cir. 1985) - the court issued a permanent injunction to prevent the promotion of the argument that there is no tax imposed on an exchange of property (labor) in an equal exchange for property (wages).

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) - the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the taxpayer's contention that wages and salaries are not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment is "totally lacking in merit."

United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981) - the court affirmed Romero's conviction for willfully failing to file tax returns, finding, in part, that "[t]he trial judge properly instructed the jury on the meaning of [?'income' and ?'person']. Romero's proclaimed belief that he was not a ?'person' and that the wages he earned as a carpenter were not ?'income' is fatuous as well as obviously incorrect."

Abdo v. United States, 234 F. Supp. 2d 553 (M.D. N.C. 2002), aff'd, 2003-1 U.S.T.C. (CCH) ¶ 50,483 (4th Cir. 2003) - the tax preparer prepared returns based on the argument that labor is an exchange for wages and not taxable. The court cited Connor, supra, when finding that the tax preparer misstated the law.

McCoy v. United States, 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7116, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18986 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2001) - the court rejected the taxpayer's argument that wages received were not income and described this position as meritless.

Sumter v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 517, 523 (2004) - the court found the taxpayer's "claim of right" argument as "devoid of any merit" and that section 1341 only applies to situations in which the claimant is compelled to return the taxed item because of a mistaken presumption that the right held was unrestricted and, thus, the item was previously reported, erroneously, as taxable income. Section 1341 was inapplicable to Ms. Sumter, because she had a continuing, unrestricted claim of right to her salary income and had not been compelled to repay that income in a later tax year.

Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 413 (1984) - the court rejected the argument that wages are not income, sustained the failure to file penalty, and awarded damages of $5,000 for pursuing a position that was "frivolous and groundless . . . and maintained primarily for delay."

Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff'd, 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980) - the court said the entire amount received from the sale of one's services constitutes income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Cullinane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-2, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1192, 1193 (1999) - noting that "[c]ourts have consistently held that compensation for services rendered constitutes taxable income and that taxpayers have no tax basis in their labor," the court found Cullinane liable for the failure to file penalty, stating that "[his] argument that he is not required to pay tax on compensation for services does not constitute reasonable cause."

Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-102, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1543-45 (2002) - the court rejected the taxpayer's frivolous argument that his wages were not taxable based on his belief that "[p]roperty (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to tax)" is not subject to income taxation. The court stated that such claims have been "consistently and thoroughly rejected" by the courts and imposed a penalty against Wheelis in the amount of $10,000 for making frivolous arguments.

Carskadon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-237, 86 T.C.M. (CCH) 234, 236 - the court rejected the taxpayer's frivolous argument that "wages are not taxable because the Code, which states what is taxable, does not specifically state that ?'time reimbursement transactions,' a term of art coined by [taxpayers], are taxable." The court imposed a $2,000 penalty against the taxpayers for raising "only frivolous arguments which can be characterized as tax protester rhetoric." "IRS TELLS IT ALL HERE

I am NOT employed by the IRS nor do I endorse what is presented.
It is the list of arguments and court cases, tc rulings, memos etc.

Tryagain wrote:

..................
1. There is NO LAW that requires most Americans to file a tax return, pay the federal income tax nor have the tax withheld from their earnings.

2. In 1913, the 16th Amendment (the "income tax" Amendment) was fraudulently
and illegally declared to be ratified by a lame-duck Secretary of State
just days before leaving office.

3. Also in 1913, Congress created the Federal Reserve System, a banking cartel organized by the largest private banks in the country. By 1933, the FRS had been granted the power to:

• • Fabricate money out of thin air.
• • Charge interest to the Government for the use of the Fed's currency.
• • Receive taxes to pay the interest on the debt created, to be paid with the American People's gold and silver.

This is all in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

NOTE: Most people do not know that the "Fed" is a privately owned
corporation functioning as a central bank. Nor do they know that the monetary policies of the FRS (i.e., its foreign exchange and domestic open market operations) have never been fully audited.

4. Those who file a Form 1040 "voluntarily" waive their 5th Amendment (Miranda) right not to bear witness against themselves.

5. The IRS routinely violates citizens' 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure without a warrant issued by a court upon probable cause and supported by oath and affirmation. IRS levies and seizures are unenforceable because the IRS is UNABLE AND UNWILLING to swear under oath that a law has been broken or that there is probable cause of a violation.

6. The IRS, as standard operating procedure, routinely violates citizens' due process rights in its administrative procedures and operates far outside the law. The courts cannot be relied upon to strike down such actions.

Ask the IRS to SHOW YOU WHAT LAW REQUIRES YOU TO FILE A FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN............ .

The IRS link listed above deals with these.
I rather not pay personal income tax. Try, can I join you? :wink:

"Per the IRS" Thats your first mistake.. You cant trust anything they tell you because theyre a bunch of liars.

Think about this:
How can the IRS define 'Gross Income' as 'all income from whatever source derived ' without actually defining the word 'income'

Its like saying 'Gross widgets' are 'all widgets from whatever source derived'... Would anyone know what a widget was?

I find it odd.. In their law they will define practically everything you can imagine EXCEPT 'Income'... YOud think THAT would be something they would define after all it is was they purportedly tax.

I guess you'd be joining all 67 million people who dont file each year.

Interesting post TTH, Parados could not have produced better.

However:

The shocking truth the IRS wanted to conceal….

Disclaimer
This report is intended purely as a communication of information in accordance with the right of free speech. It does not constitute legal or tax advice. Anyone seeking legal or tax advice should consult a competent professional. Readers are specifically advised to obey all laws to the letter.

U.S. V. LLOYD R. LONG

The following article is reprinted from the December 1993 edition of Free Enterprise Society News, 300 W. Shaw Ave. #205, Clovis, Calif. 93612:
"A not guilty verdict came in the Eastern District of Tennessee in the case of U.S. v. Lloyd R. Long, #CR-1-93-91. The verdict came on October 15th, 1993.

This was an amazing case involving the income tax. A Chattanooga jury agreed with the argument by Long that the income tax is actually an excise tax and only applies to certain classes of people.

Nationally prominent attorney Lowell Becraft, of Huntsville Alabama, assisted by attorney Russell J. Leonard of Sewanee, Tennessee, defended Lloyd R. Long of Decherd, Tennessee. Long was charged with willful failure to file income tax returns for 1989 and 1990.

In presenting the case for the IRS, the government, represented by assistant US attorney Curtis Collier assisted by special agent Michael Geasley of the IRS, declared that Long had grossed income in excess of $49,000.00 for each year, and that he willfully failed to file income tax returns.

The defense admitted that Long had an income in excess of $49,000.00 for each year in question, and that he did not file a return. He then proceeded to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not liable for an income tax, nor was he required by law to file.

Defense testimony showed a case titled Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad wherein it was the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court that the 16th amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax any new subjects; it merely tried to simplify the way in which the tax was imposed. It also showed that the income tax was in fact an excise tax on corporate privileges and privileged occupations. The defense then brought out a case entitled Flint v. Stone Tracy wherein an excise tax was defined as a tax being laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country; upon licenses to pursue certain occupations; and upon corporate privileges.

Mr. Long's attorneys also brought out a case entitled Simms v. Arehns, wherein the court ruled that the income tax was neither a property tax nor a tax upon occupations of common right, but was an excise tax.
The defense then brought out a case entitled Redfield v. Fisher, wherein the court ruled that the individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, but that the individual's right to live and own property was a natural right upon which an excise cannot be imposed. Defense also pointed to a couple of studies done by the Congressional Research Service that shows the income tax is an excise.
Next, defense pointed out that in Tennessee Supreme Court case Jack Cole v. Commissioner the court ruled that citizens are entitled by right to income or earnings and that right could not be taxed as a privilege. In another Tennessee Supreme Court case Corn v. Fort the court ruled that individuals have the right to combine their activities as partnerships; and that this is a natural right independent and antecedent of government.
The prosecution did not challenge or attempt to refute any of these cases cited, or the conclusions of the courts.

Defense brought out in testimony the fact that nowhere in the entire IRS Code was anyone actually made liable for the income tax. They showed that in the IRS's own privacy act notice only three sections were cited, and that none of these sections made anyone liable for the tax. They also proved that this was not an oversight by showing that the alcohol tax was worded so clearly that no one could misinterpret who was liable for the alcohol tax.

Prosecution did not challenge or attempt to refute this point, nor were they able to show a statute that made anyone liable for the income tax.
Defense then presented the mission statement of the IRS stating that the income tax relied upon voluntary compliance, and a statement from the head of the alcohol and tobacco tax division of the IRS which in essence showed that the income tax is 100% voluntary, as opposed to the alcohol tax, which is 100% mandatory.

Mr. Long stated that in 1989 he knew that the income tax was in fact an excise tax; and that he was not enjoying any corporation; and that income or earnings from the exercise of common right could not be taxed as an excise or otherwise; and that nowhere in the IRS Code was he made liable for the tax; and that the income tax was voluntary. Long then stated he was so intimidated by the IRS that he filed and paid his voluntary assessment.

He then began a series of letters to the IRS explaining that he had no licenses or privileges issued to him by the federal government. He asked for direct answers to simple questions, such as "Am I required to file federal income tax returns?"; and "Am I liable for federal income taxes?" The IRS never gave a direct answer to any questions. Instead they inferred and insinuated and extrapolated and beat around the bush, and generally avoided answering. So Mr. Long testified that he decided to stop volunteering.

The IRS brought in 2 expert witnesses. Both were actually IRS employees who had received training as professional witnesses. Upon cross-examination by Attorney Becraft, one witness, a Ms. Jeu, stated that a secret code known only to the IRS, and encoded on Mr. Long's permanent record, showed that the IRS knew that he was not required to mail or file a return. Ms. Jeu made every effort to avoid this admission to the point that she was beginning to frustrate the jury. The other witness, upon cross-examination by Becraft gave testimony that conflicted with the Privacy Act notice.

The government also attempted to institute "guilt by association" in that they claimed Mr. Long had known and relied upon persons of questionable character. They argued that the writers of some of the books he read and people he knew had been convicted of tax-related charges in the past and were in fact criminals.

Long responded that just because a person had been convicted of a crime by a court, did not invalidate everything said. To illustrate his point, he pointed out that apostle Paul was a murderer, but that by the grace of God he became the greatest of the Apostles. Mr. Long added that he did not rely on anything that he did not personally check out thoroughly.
In summation Attorney Larry Becraft reminded them that Galileo was imprisoned for holding a belief that conflicted with one which everyone else knew as a fact; and that Columbus, acting on a belief which conflicted with what everyone else knew as a fact, discovered something no one else thought existed.

The jury agreed with the defense. By finding Mr. Long "Not Guilty" on all counts they have ventured into history as preservers of freedom.
A Chattanooga TV Station quoted a government spokesman as saying that this case will change the way the IRS will handle such cases in the future. They indicated that they will be less likely to prosecute if a jury isn't going to decide in their favor.

Mr. Long's spirit was best expressed when he was asked for a final statement by a reporter as he was leaving the courtroom. His words: "To God be the glory!"