Is U.S. income tax invalid?

Writing on the form can alter it depending on what is written.

Sending in a form with nothing on it?

I know a person who was penalized $500 from the IRS because she did not send in a 1065 with $0 on it. She forgot to send it in one year.
This taxpayer sent the form in every year and put $0.

Technically, she and her partners are a partnership. She would send in the 1065 with $0 and then the partners split the income on their separate Sch. C's. Go figure The IRS knew this and over looked it.

It was not me either, to those who know my personal situation.

"It takes two to speak the truth: one to speak, and another to hear."
-Henry David Thoreau


We unearth the stories withheld and suppressed - Now, for the first time the truth so long denied to the people:


NY TIMES: Saying Income Tax Is Illegal

November 19, 2000

Saying Income Tax Is Illegal:
Business Owners Quit Paying

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

LAKE SHASTA, Calif. Al Thompson squeezed most of his manufacturing
company's 28 employees into a conference room here in October to say he had good news: Income taxes must be paid by only a few Americans, mostly those working for foreign-owned companies. So, he told the workers, they would not have to pay income taxes ever again. His business is exempt, too, he said.

No Social Security or Medicare taxes, either. The company was no longer
withholding taxes from their paychecks, he said, or telling the Internal
Revenue Service how much they made.

Mr. Thompson is part of a tiny but increasingly flamboyant fringe of
American business. Arguing that the federal tax laws do not apply to them, these small companies are thumbing their noses at the I.R.S. in a very public way: they have not only stopped withholding taxes and turning them over to the government, they are also bragging about it on Web sites and radio talk shows, and organizing seminars to promote the gospel of defiance.

And they are boasting that they must be right because the I.R.S. has not
come after them, even though it knows what they are doing. Mr. Thompson noted that he had not sent a weekly tax payment to the I.R.S. since July, yet "I have not been drug off to jail."

Indeed, the I.R.S. has not only failed to pursue these businesses, it has
in some cases given refunds after they claimed they did not owe taxes paid earlier. In at least two cases, the businesses say they even received
apologetic letters from the I.R.S. for not rescinding penalties and issuing
the refunds sooner.

Many tax experts express astonishment at the idea that the I.R.S. is aware that legitimate businesses are cheating yet has not even written to ask why their tax payments stopped, let alone begun action to make them pay. This undermines the principle on which the American tax system is based, they say: people who do not pay their taxes will pay the consequences.

How many businesses are taunting the I.R.S. this way is impossible to know. At least 23, including Mr. Thompson's aviation products company, a Florida marketing firm and a Texas plastics company, have made their decisions public. Sixty business owners and their advisers met on the weekend of Nov. 11 in California to plan how to persuade thousands of others to join them.

Over the years, a number of individuals have claimed to be out of reach of the tax laws, but experts, including four former I.R.S. commissioners, said this case was different. "This is tremendously significant because we have never before had responsible parties employers refuse to withhold," said Sheldon Cohen, a former I.R.S. commissioner. "The system simply cannot work if they get away with this."

The I.R.S. declined to comment on whether it was pursuing enforcement
actions against the 23 employers, citing a law that protects taxpayer
privacy. But there is no public record showing litigation or enforcement
actions like liens against the companies' assets.
The failure of the I.R.S. to act even against those who openly defy the tax laws raises questions about the agency's ability to stop tax cheating.
Asked whether the I.R.S. was moving against any such tax resisters, the
senior I.R.S. spokesman, Frank Keith, would say only that "with limited
resources the I.R.S. must often choose which cases to pursue" and that it
focuses on those that will generate the most revenue.

But Jerome Kurtz, another former commissioner, disagreed. "That's a nice pat line," he said, "but they don't go after only the people with the
highest income. They audit hundreds of thousands of returns under $25,000 that produce little or no revenue and they can take resources from those."Michael Graetz, a tax policy adviser under President George Bush and now a professor at Yale, added that he thought it was a big mistake that the I.R.S. had not moved immediately against these employers. "They have to act," he said, "or this will get out of hand very, very quickly."

Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti of the I.R.S. has warned Congress that the agency's enforcement resources have so shriveled that a growing number of people will think they can get away with not paying taxes, and the tax collection system will be threatened."



When asked for a comment on this sensational disclosure T.R. Yagain said, "This proves there is a God, and there is still time for all Democrats to repent."

Is that the Al Thompson that was convicted for 13 counts of tax evasion?

http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/000779.php

I would have posted a more authoritative story of his conviction by I liked the story told in this telling about another tax protester.

parados, That's a good un. LOL

Parados writes with some satisfaction, "Is that the Al Thompson that was convicted for 13 counts of tax evasion?"

The White Pages list some 300 Al Thompson's, do you expect me to know them all? However, I do know CI will be in Chicago for eight days beginning May 29. Furthermore:

There is no law that Americans must have a social security number. An employer who is participating in the social security program is required to give a W-4 to each worker, but is not required to get it back, and the worker is not required to fill it out and give it back, unless the worker wants to participate in social security. Absent a W-4, an employer is not authorized by law to take money out of a worker's pay for employment taxes.

An increasing number of employers have, in accordance with the law, stopped withholding income and employment taxes from the money they pay their workers.

According to Sections 1.1441-5 of the Code of Federal Regulations and IRS instructions (Publication #515), if a worker submits, in duplicate, a statement of U.S. citizenship (a simple letter will do) the employer/withholding agent is relieved of duty to withhold taxes from money paid to that worker. The withholding agent, no matter where located, then is to send one copy of the statement to the IRS Philadelphia Service Center (not to their own regional center); Philadelphia is the International Service Center, and withholding only applies to aliens or foreign income.

IRS officials typically cannot swear that income tax is due in order to get a court warrant, as per the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

As an indication of how much confusion there is about legal aspects of the income tax, the highest courts in the land cannot make up their collective mind on a point as basic as whether it is a direct tax or an indirect tax (those being the two classes of taxes established by the Constitution).

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled early on that the income tax was in the nature of an excise tax, which would make it indirect. However, six of the 11 federal circuit appeals courts have ruled it to be a direct tax, in open defiance or rebellion against the Supreme Court, and those rulings have never been overturned.


Still to come: The murky secret origins of the Federal Reserve System!

Tryagain, I'm not sure which companies in the US allows employees to work without filling out a W4, but all employers, are by law, required to withhold taxes and pay taxes. If the employee fails to file their W4, the employer is still required to withhold taxes, and the employee is liable to pay taxes through payroll withholding no less than 90 percent of their tax liability. If they don't, they are charged penalty and interest charges.

Mr Mackey: "Um, the Federal Reserve is. baaaaaadddddd,"

Of those fools that signed the 2001 letter to the USA Today like Al Thompson did, most of them have since been convicted of tax fraud.

You keep posting OLD stuff Tryagain as if you think it has never been challenged in court.

Cite which rulings you think did this. Let's examine them and see if your statement is true.

I'll put up $100 that you can't cite 7 cases. One by USSC that calls income tax indirect and 6 cases after that by the appeals courts in 6 districts that clearly rule the US income tax is an "direct tax." and were not overturned. You willing to put up any money Tryagain?

I am just curious as to how deceptive you are trying to be here Try. Are you ignorant or willfully misleading people. So, lets find out. Cite the 7 cases and lets examine them. I'll check back every few months and remind you how you have failed.

You left off the rest of my sentence Tryagain.



You aren't arguing that the stuff you are posting is historical Try. You are arguing that it is valid today.

Your arguments are about as valid to history as arguing that Germany still occupies France because they invaded in 1940. You can't ignore the history that has happened after the things you keep brining up.

Who "owns" the Federal Reserve?

Now, for the first time after years of research the shocking truth can at last be told of the connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.

The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.

These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.

Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.






"(Tryagain) Your arguments are about as valid to history as arguing that Germany still occupies France because they invaded in 1940. You can't ignore the history that has happened after the things you keep brining up."


Next time we expose; who provisioned Germany from 1915-1918 and dissuaded Germany from seeking peace in 1916; financing Hitler in 1933 so as to make a Second World War possible.

I'm not Canadian. I don't know where you got that idea. I have been doing my own taxes in the US for decades now.

As I thought. You claimed this is here because it is history but then you can't provide anything more than the lies told about history by the tax protest movement. If you really wanted this to be history why don't you do research and see what is true and what isn't?

The Federal Reserve Bank is NOT owned by one guy in London..
That has to be the stupidest claim yet I have seen about the Federal Reserve.


Member banks are issued stock in the Federal Reserve.


http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm

Here is an essay disputing your OLD claim that it is owned by foreigners
http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

One little problem Tryagain. Every time I DO research one of your claims they turn out to be completely false. Yet, when I point out how they are false you pretend that I didn't say anything and move on to your next false claim.

Perhaps YOU need to do the research before you post your ludicrous screeds.

parados, You should have taken the hint from his moniker; Tryagain, and again, and again....

Im sure that foreigners ultimately own some percentage of the Federal Reserve just like they did the 2nd bank of the US.

Ive seen the graphic tryagain is talking about but I dont think theres anyway to validate that information.. Being a private entity, I dont think they have ever disclosed who all the owners are.. nor do they have to.

IT could be true, but we just dont know. Just like companies like Kane & co, Cede & co, etc,, huge companies you never hear about but own great chunks of out airline industry, oil industrym etc,,]

Very hard to track down the real owners in these never ending chains of ownership

Myth #5.

Foreigners can own shares in the member banks that own shares of the Federal Reserve banks.