# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Tax Expert Says Employers Withholding Federal Income Tax is Illegal. Heres Why.

## Weston White

Those of us in the Tax Honesty Movement has been arguing this for years, for years, for DECADES!

*Tax Expert Says Employers Withholding Federal Income Tax is Illegal. Heres Why.*



> The productive spirit of the American worker dies a little bit every time he looks at his pay stub and sees a healthy portion of his wage go down the black hole of Federal Income Tax withholding.
> 
> Yet millions of Americans are not aware that Chapter 24 withholding is not required by private-sector employers. With the proper declaration paperwork provided to an employers payroll department, there should be nothing taken out of an employees paycheck for Federal Income Tax.
> 
> The Internal Revenue Manual 5.14.10.2.2 (2004) (IRM) states:
> 
>     Private employers, states, and political subdivisions are not required to enter into payroll deduction agreements (meaning Form W-4). Taxpayers should determine whether their employers will accept and process executed agreements before agreements are submitted for approval or finalized.
> 
> Shocking to many Americans is the existence of those who are lawful American non-taxpayers as stated by the Federal Appellate Court case in 1972: They (the revenue laws) relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. Thus, the IRM section only applies as a procedure for those who are legal U.S. Taxpayers and does not apply to Americans who are lawful nontaxpayers.
> ...


http://constitution.com/tax-expert-e...-forced-labor/

----------


## Zippyjuan

Not having money withheld towards taxes does not mean the IRS won't want their cut at the end of the year.  Just means you have to come up with it in one lump sum. 

From the article: 



> For private-sector employers, withholding exemptions presented by employees must be accepted, according to 26 USC 3402(n) which explicitly states:
> 
> “Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate (in such form and containing such other information as the Secretary may prescribe) furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that the employee:
> 
> *(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his preceding taxable year, and
> 
> (2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year*.”




"How To":  http://budgeting.thenest.com/tempora...eck-24349.html




> *How to Temporarily Stop Withholding from a Paycheck*
> 
> You can stop withholding from your paycheck by completing a new Form W-4 -- "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate." This will stop income tax from being withheld from your check,* but not Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are mandatory and cannot be stopped by you or your employer. Some states impose other mandatory tax withholdings, such as state disability insurance. If you live in a state that has required deductions other than income tax, the mandatory withholdings may remain in effect.*
> 
> 
> Step 1
> Download Form W-4 from IRS website.
> 
> Step 2
> ...


Also note I found at another link describing this: http://www.geeksonfinance.com/how_20...ng-income.html




> However, to qualify for exemption, *you cannot make more than $850 annually*.





> *Warnings*
> If you reduce your withholding by too much or stop it altogether, *you must pay quarterly estimated taxes the IRS*.


Or you can try to declare yourself a private contractor.   You are still liable for the taxes though (and now 100% instead of half of the Social Security taxes).

----------


## Weston White

> Not having money withheld towards taxes does not mean the IRS won't want their cut at the end of the year. Just means you have to come up with it in one lump sum.


Neither does having money withheld, in itself, make you liable for income taxes.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Neither does having money withheld, in itself, make you liable for income taxes.


About 45% of people who filed income taxes owed no net income tax this year. (can't get around the Social Security tax though)

----------


## Weston White

> About 45% of people who filed income taxes owed no net income tax this year. (can't get around the Social Security tax though)


Yes you can, so far as employees are concerned, FICA are voluntary entitlement programs.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Wasn't withholding originally implemented as only a "temporary" WWII effort, to help with the government's cash flow challenges?

----------


## Danke

> Wasn't withholding originally implemented as only a "temporary" WWII effort, to help with the government's cash flow challenges?


Yes

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Originally Posted by Ronin Truth
> 
> 
> Wasn't withholding originally implemented as only a "temporary" WWII effort, to help with the government's cash flow challenges?
> 
> 
> Yes


Withholding was originally introduced in the Revenue Act of 1913, but it was repealed in 1917.

----------


## angelatc

> Yes you can, so far as employees are concerned, FICA are voluntary entitlement programs.


The person telling you that is lying to you.   If you make over $600 per year, you are required to "contribute."

----------


## kfarnan

> Yes


the income tax as we know it was created to pay the fed reserve for their scam system.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Wasn't withholding originally implemented as only a "temporary" WWII effort, to help with the government's cash flow challenges?


But not as a cash flow issue.

It was used as a wage and price control.

As defense contractors started bidding for the shrinking pool of skilled workmen during the war years, The FedGov became worried that the wage war would bid up defense prices too high.

So they concocted this "temporary" measure to cut into your pay to make it worthless to work more overtime or at higher wage.

That's why withholding is "progressive" and calculated on last dollar earned.

That's also why employer provided "benefits" such as health care came into being, and thus monkey $#@!ed the health care and insurance markets into the mess we are dealing with now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

It was also to force compliance and hide how much is being taken.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It was also to force compliance and hide how much is being taken.


Bring back door to door tax collections, all in one cash lump sum every year. Casualty rates for the collectors probably wouldn't be too high.

----------


## fisharmor

> Casualty rates for the collectors probably wouldn't be too high.


Is there a scenario where they would be?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Is there a scenario where they would be?


All collections must be in pennies?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> It was also to force compliance and hide how much is being taken.


It's not hidden very well when it's spelled out on a person's paycheck stub.

----------


## phill4paul

I have not filed, nor payed, a state or federal income tax in six years. I am a conscientious objector to the policies my income tax would bring about. I wish everyone would also do so. I do understand that not everyone is in my position. It is a hard and bitter pill for most to swallow given their particular situation. For me it took doing what I knew best which is handy-man work. I am not licensed. In today's world that can be an impediment, but surprisingly it can be liberating. I do not work for a wage. I trade for a living.

----------


## Weston White

> The person telling you that is lying to you.   If you make over $600 per year, you are required to "contribute."


Negative, the people compelling you to "contribute" are operating solely by the decrees of the IRS' own Pub. 15/Circular E and 15-A/Supplemental.  They are themselves obtuse and lack any legal background whatsoever.  Only specifically defined classes of persons are "required" to either contribute or "contribute."

----------


## Weston White

> Withholding was originally introduced in the Revenue Act of 1913, but it was repealed in 1917.


He means the constitutional scandal of 1942 (i.e., Current Tax Payment Act of 1943), and you know it.  Moreover, $3,000 in 1913 is about $70,000 today, thereby only 2% of the population even paid the income tax at all during that period--and the rate was a small fraction of what it is today.  Face it, the federal government is raging, spiraling out of control!

----------


## Danke

> He means the constitutional scandal of 1942 (i.e., Current Tax Payment Act of 1943), and you know it.  Moreover, $3,000 in 1913 is about $70,000 today, thereby only 2% of the population even paid the income tax at all during that period--and the rate was a small fraction of what it is today.  Face it, the federal government is raging, spiraling out of control!


Yep.

http://www.dailyjobsupdate.com/publi...ng-tax-history

----------


## Weston White

> It's not hidden very well when it's spelled out on a person's paycheck stub.


It is hidden in that it is silently taken from your employer (i.e., payer) on behalf of money never at anytime possessed or controlled by you--thus you are in-fact being taxed on a portion of money never intended for you to receive or even behold and thus violates the principles embedded in quid pro quo and your rights to establish private contracts.  Dr. Adam Smith was clear on the correct procedure, such tact when implemented, is to be paid by the employer's pockets on the behalf of their employees.

1.  You are only making that sum on paper only, but only actually receive a lesser sum in reality.
2.  You loose rights to establish interest on that sum until it is actually due at the close of the tax-year.
3.  This renders the process as unethical and immoral as it is demoralizing and sordid.

----------


## devil21

Need more threads like this one, less MSM fluff.

----------


## angelatc

> Negative, the people compelling you to "contribute" are operating solely by the decrees of the IRS' own Pub. 15/Circular E and 15-A/Supplemental.  They are themselves obtuse and lack any legal background whatsoever.  Only specifically defined classes of persons are "required" to either contribute or "contribute."


Sigh.  The statute you quoted,  5.14.10.2.2,  doesn't even say what your cite say it says.  Here's the manual: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-014-010.html#d0e64

Here's what it actually says: *5.14.10.2  (01-22-2015)




			
				Payroll Deduction Agreements
			
		

*


> 





> The use of Form 2159, Payroll Deduction Agreement, must be strongly encouraged when the taxpayer is a wage earner, particularly if the taxpayer defaulted on a previous installment agreement.*Streamlined installment agreements with aggregate unpaid balance of assessments (UBA) between $25,001 and $50,000 require either a payroll deduction agreement or direct debit as the method of payment.*


Additionally, the form 2159 is not related to current income tax withholding.  

 It is used by taxpayers with a large debt for previous years who agree to make automatic payments against that debt via payroll deduction.  You, as an employer, have no obligation to service the employee's debt on behalf of the IRS though.

----------


## devil21

What if one is not a "taxpayer", angelatc?  "Taxpayer" has a specific definition, therefore the text you quoted applies only to someone that is defined as a "taxpayer".  Weston's OP specifically mentions this distinction.

----------


## erowe1

> Negative, the people compelling you to "contribute" are operating solely by the decrees of the IRS' own Pub. 15/Circular E and 15-A/Supplemental.  They are themselves obtuse and lack any legal background whatsoever.  Only specifically defined classes of persons are "required" to either contribute or "contribute."


So, what you're saying is that, even though the IRS requires people to do something, it may still be the case that they are not required to do it.

Did I get that right?

----------


## kfarnan

This is correct.  The income tax for persons is bogus.  But, don't tangle the irs.  They are above the law without remorse.

----------


## erowe1

> This is correct.  The income tax for persons is bogus.  But, don't tangle the irs.  They are above the law without remorse.


I agree. And the same can be said for the everything the state does. It is all bogus, but the state acts as an entity above the law. So doing what it tells you to is often advisable, bogus or not.

----------


## angelatc

> What if one is not a "taxpayer", angelatc?  "Taxpayer" has a specific definition, therefore the text you quoted applies only to someone that is defined as a "taxpayer".  Weston's OP specifically mentions this distinction.


Nothing I can say will convince you that the law exists.  The entire argument presented above is wrong, because the statue it is talking about is not about income taxes, it's about collecting debts owed to the IRS.  Stop moving the goalposts. Either address that point, or go away.

----------


## devil21

> So, what you're saying is that, even though the IRS requires people to do something, it may still be the case that they are not required to do it.
> 
> Did I get that right?


What is your definition of "people"?

Requires some to do something.  Others are not required.  Words have definitions and in all things statutory/regulatory the definition of words is what matters.  Your definition of a word may not be (and probably is not) what the legal definition is.




> Nothing I can say will convince you that the law exists.  The entire argument presented above is wrong, because the statue it is talking about is not about income taxes, it's about collecting debts owed to the IRS.  Stop moving the goalposts. Either address that point, or go away.


That sound you just heard was the -point flying right over your head-.

Carry on "taxpayer".

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Need more threads like this one, less MSM fluff.


Better MSM fluff than scammers like Adele Weiss.

If you go to this clown's website you find that he claims that one who receives a Notice of Deficiency (a "NOD") from the IRS can use his methods (for a fee, of course) to use the Tax Court to win:




> "We accomplish our objective by securing a Court Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction — against the IRS and in your favor — from the United States Tax Court in Washington, D.C.


What this charlatan doesn't tell you is that the only way to get the Tax Court involved is for the person who received the NOD to file a petition with the court.  If the petition is filed too late (more than 90 days after the NOD) or if the filing fee isn't paid, guess what?  The court dismisses the petition for lack of jurisdiction, which means the poor schmuck who bought into this snake oil *loses*. He loses his opportunity to contest the IRS's determination without having to pay the tax in advance, and unless he does pay he'll have his property levied on.  It's no surprise that this outfit is based in Europe and refuses to give out an address or phone number.

http://www.weissparis.com/

----------


## erowe1

> What is your definition of "people"?


Any people, especially, whoever @Weston White meant when he said "you" in the quote I was replying to.

----------


## angelatc

> That sound you just heard was the -point flying right over your head-.
> 
> Carry on "taxpayer".


This is why everybody hates libertarians.  It is akin to talking to a wall.

----------


## devil21

> This is why everybody hates libertarians.  It is akin to talking to a wall.


Do you have a rebuttal of substance?

Also odd that you apparently hold disdain for libertarians yet have a 2007 join date on LIBERTY FOREST.  Why are you here?  The sheep tend to prefer FreeRepublic and Breitbart.

----------


## Feelgood

> the income tax as we know it was created to pay the fed reserve for their scam system.


Correct. 

As was revealed in the report from the Grace Commission. 100% of all income tax collected goes directly to the Federal Reserve to pay the interest on the money they print.

----------


## Contumacious

> Wasn't withholding originally implemented as only a "temporary" WWII effort, to help with the government's cash flow challenges?


Yes, indeed it was.

The Victory Tax of 1942 was a direct Tax on wages - which fedgov can levy during emergencies fora maximum of 2 years. 

But somehow the powers that be forgot to STOP withholding at the source. $#@! happens when you deal with corrupt bureaucrats.


.

----------


## Weston White

[QUOTE=angelatc;6199429]Sigh.  The statute you quoted, [COLOR=#333333] 5.14.10.2.2,  doesn't even say what your cite say it says.

It was quoted by the article, not me, and is referencing the IRM in 9/30/2004; this is a tactic frequently applied by the IRS, to omit or move around key or questionable information that has been made public.  However, yes that part bears on voluntary payoff arrangements between an employee and their employer for IRS purposes.  See:




> Private employers, states, and political subdivisions are not required to enter into payroll deduction agreements. Taxpayers should determine whether their employers will accept and process executed agreements before agreements are submitted for approval or finalized.


http://web.archive.org/web/200511012...html#d0e163795

----------


## Weston White

> Nothing I can say will convince you that the law exists.  The entire argument presented above is wrong, because the statue it is talking about is not about income taxes, it's about collecting debts owed to the IRS.  Stop moving the goalposts. Either address that point, or go away.


The article brings up myriads of concerns, yet you hone in a a single issue and fixate upon that?  Sort of like how you debate for vaccines and GMO, is that about right?

----------


## Weston White

> Better MSM fluff than scammers like Adele Weiss.
> 
> If you go to this clown's website you find that he claims that one who receives a Notice of Deficiency (a "NOD") from the IRS can use his methods (for a fee, of course) to use the Tax Court to win:


Not hardly.  At least with this it is not steeped in pure fiction and inspires you to question your government, rather than mindlessly cheering that fiction, while droning about thinking yourself to be informed.

How about this, is a notice of appeal an appeal?   So then how does a notice of deficiency become a deficiency, a notice of lien a lien, a notice of levy, a levy?

----------


## Weston White

> This is why everybody hates libertarians.  It is akin to talking to a wall.


I would say the same thing about neocons or socialists.  Although at least with libertarians we are entirely willing to logically debate you, unlike those former who would rather just yell nonsensical gibberish and dump this piss over your head like petulant, spoiled brat, children; at least when they are not too busy hanging out around men's restrooms or jetting off to their next Lolita island getaway.

----------


## erowe1

> As was revealed in the report from the Grace Commission. 100% of all income tax collected goes directly to the Federal Reserve to pay the interest on the money they print.


For 2015 the income tax brought in 1.5 Trillion, and federal payment of interest was 200 Billion.

So, whether the Grace Commission was right about that when they said it (when interest rates were in the double digits) or not, I don't know. But it's not something you can just say as a general fact as if it's true every year.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> As was revealed in the report from the Grace Commission. 100% of all income tax collected goes directly to the Federal Reserve to pay the interest on the money they print.


Not only is this not what the Grace Commission Report said, the actual numbers show that the interest is far less than the amount of income tax revenue collected.  See http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg...taxes/debt.htm

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> At least with this it is not steeped in pure fiction and inspires you to question your government, rather than mindlessly cheering that fiction, while droning about thinking yourself to be informed.


Weiss's baloney is pure fiction.  He claims his method leads to a victory for the person who received the notice when in reality it does just the opposite.




> So then how does a notice of deficiency become a deficiency


Because once the IRS determines a deficiency it's up to the person against whom the deficiency has been determined to challenge it.  If he doesn't the IRS can proceed to collect.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Yes, most all of these arguments about "laws" and "definitions" are valid. 

No, the "goonerment" does not give a damn and will lock you up anyway.  Ask Irwin Schiff R.I.P.

I did not file or pay for over 20 years (about 1977 to 2000).  Eventually I had to pay because my wife became a doctor and doctors pretty much have to show their "tax returns" to do any business.  The goons would have caught up with me at some point anyway so we started filing when she began her practice.  Our first return was 2004 and since we really did have NO income that year (or the next 2 because we were operating in the red) we filed returns that reflected this.  The goons of course wanted to see past returns which I had not filed.  They contacted us wanting returns for the last 5 years and I told them I did not have records for those years.  They said they had records of our "income" so I said "Great.  Why don't you prepare them and we will pay".  That's exactly what they did.  They prepared substitute returns for us and we paid what they thought we owed.  I can say that even though I did not have exact records for those years the goons missed a lot of what we made so the "bill" even with penalties and interest was actually a good bit less than what we would have had to pay if we had dutifully filed those years...

Now of course we have a CPA doing our taxes and we just send in about half of everything we make to the goons as "protection money" so they don't come and break our legs and burn down our home and business.  

I knew Irwin and read all his books and followed all his advice.  I fared much better than he did as the leader of the tax freedom movement.  What I learned through all of this is that "laws" are fiction.  They don't exist except for in the mind of the believer and the IRS goons DO NOT believe in any "law".  They only believe in using threat and pain to extract money from the masses.  Irwin's term "The Federal Mafia" fits perfectly...

----------


## angelatc

> The article brings up myriads of concerns, yet you hone in a a single issue and fixate upon that?


 Concerns are not relevant to facts.  The fact is that the entire premise of the argument, the above cited statute is flawed.

 The author claims it means entering into an agreement to have your taxes withheld is voluntary. Wrong.

It is actually saying that if the IRS has already determined that you owe the IRS money, you can choose to enter into an installment arrangement. (But if you do not, the IRS might not agree to the arrangement.)

As per the installment payments, you can choose to your employer withhold payments and submit to them to the IRS on your behalf. That is voluntary.  The employer does not have to do that if he/she does not want to. And you do not have to ask them. (But you might need to choose between direct withdrawal and payroll deductions.)

The "expert" you're citing is wrong.  That was my claim, back up by evidence including a link to the manual originally cited. All I did was check the IRS manual to confirm the data you presented, and damn - you hate it when I do that.

In response, the self professed free thinkers sneered things about highly educated experts, put words in brackets, and brought up GMOs and vaccines.  *JFK - take a debate class and learn how to discuss like an adult. *

----------


## TheUglyTruth

Actually, tax withholding is the law:




> *(a)**Requirement
> **The tax imposed by section 3101 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer, by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid.* An employer who in any calendar year pays to an employee cash remuneration to which paragraph (7)(B) of section 3121(a) is applicable may deduct an amount equivalent to such tax from any such payment of remuneration, even though at the time of payment the total amount of such remuneration paid to the employee by the employer in the calendar year is less than the applicable dollar threshold (as defined in section 3121(x)) for such year; and an employer who in any calendar year pays to an employee cash remuneration to which paragraph (7)(C) or (10) of section 3121(a) is applicable may deduct an amount equivalent to such tax from any such payment of remuneration, even though at the time of payment the total amount of such remuneration paid to the employee by the employer in the calendar year is less than $100; and an employer who in any calendar year pays to an employee cash remuneration to which paragraph (8)(B) of section 3121(a) is applicable may deduct an amount equivalent to such tax from any such payment of remuneration, even though at the time of payment the total amount of such remuneration paid to the employee by the employer in the calendar year is less than $150; and an employer who is furnished by an employee a written statement of tips (received in a calendar month) pursuant to section 6053(a) to which paragraph (12)(B) of section 3121(a) is applicable may deduct an amount equivalent to such tax with respect to such tips from any wages of the employee (exclusive of tips) under his control, even though at the time such statement is furnished the total amount of the tips included in statements furnished to the employer as having been received by the employee in such calendar month in the course of his employment by such employer is less than $20.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3102





> *(a)**Requirement of withholding**(1)
> 
> *In general Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall—
> 
> *(A)*apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and
> 
> 
> 
> *(B)*be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be deducted and withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to reflect the provisions of chapter 1 applicable to such periods.
> ...

----------


## Feelgood

> Not only is this not what the Grace Commission Report said, the actual numbers show that the interest is far less than the amount of income tax revenue collected.


*sigh*

http://freedom-articles.toolsforfree...nly-pays-debt/

I guess this will become the next climate change debate.

----------


## TheUglyTruth

> *sigh*
> 
> http://freedom-articles.toolsforfree...nly-pays-debt/
> 
> I guess this will become the next climate change debate.


Last I checked $1.48 trillion is more than $229 billion.

----------


## erowe1

> *sigh*
> 
> http://freedom-articles.toolsforfree...nly-pays-debt/
> 
> I guess this will become the next climate change debate.


Are you disputing what Sunny said?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> *sigh*
> 
> http://freedom-articles.toolsforfree...nly-pays-debt/
> 
> I guess this will become the next climate change debate.


Maybe you'd like to see the actual text of the Report instead of relying on crackpot websites:




> Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
> 
> o One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
> 
> o Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy -- a vicious circle that must be broken.
> 
> o With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.
> 
> http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/..._d/IP0281G.pdf


As was stated in the article I provided a link to:




> Moreover, the Commission put its statement in a misleading way. In the last quoted paragraph, the Commission said that “all” income tax goes to interest and transfer payments, but the prior paragraphs show that the Commission meant "all the income tax left over after the part we regard as wasted." The Commission wrote off 1/3 of income tax as wasted. That’s obviously pretty contestible. Moreover, because the Commission regarded 1/3 of income tax as “not collected,” the 1/3 of income taxes that the Commission regarded as wasted represents 1/2 of all collected income taxes. 
> 
> So what the Commission really said is “half of income taxes collected by the federal government go to interest on the national debt and welfare.” Again, even accepting the Commission's word, that’s pretty different from “all income taxes go to interest.”
> 
> So the statement that 100% of income taxes go to pay interest on the national debt is completely wrong.

----------


## Weston White

> For 2015 the income tax brought in 1.5 Trillion, and federal payment of interest was 200 Billion.
> 
> So, whether the Grace Commission was right about that when they said it (when interest rates were in the double digits) or not, I don't know. But it's not something you can just say as a general fact as if it's true every year.


...And meanwhile how much did the national debt grow? By over $1-trillion, yes?

----------


## Weston White

> Weiss's baloney is pure fiction.  He claims his method leads to a victory for the person who received the notice when in reality it does just the opposite.


1. My name is not “Weiss” you arrogant sicko—unlike you I hide behind no myriad of handles nor do I hide behind fictions.
2.  I have never, not ever, made any such claims.
3.  I proffer no "methods" only the value of my own (including many other's) collective research—which greatly burdens putzes such as you.
4.  My original assertion still stands and that I do claim leads we—the trailblazers—to victory in both our reality as well as yours.




> Because once the IRS determines a deficiency it's up to the person against whom the deficiency has been determined to challenge it.  If he doesn't the IRS can proceed to collect.


1. And, again you still have not answered the question, only deflected it with weak-minded pseudo BS.
2. The IRS can and DOES proceed to collect regardless—they are OUT OF CONTROL and need to be COMPLETELY overhauled—the IRS functions UNETHICALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, and people such as you wholeheartedly support this, period.

----------


## Weston White

> Concerns are not relevant to facts.  The fact is that the entire premise of the argument, the above cited statute is flawed.
> 
>  The author claims it means entering into an agreement to have your taxes withheld is voluntary. Wrong.
> 
> It is actually saying that if the IRS has already determined that you owe the IRS money, you can choose to enter into an installment arrangement. (But if you do not, the IRS might not agree to the arrangement.)
> 
> As per the installment payments, you can choose to your employer withhold payments and submit to them to the IRS on your behalf. That is voluntary.  The employer does not have to do that if he/she does not want to. And you do not have to ask them. (But you might need to choose between direct withdrawal and payroll deductions.)
> 
> The "expert" you're citing is wrong.  That was my claim, back up by evidence including a link to the manual originally cited. All I did was check the IRS manual to confirm the data you presented, and damn - you hate it when I do that.
> ...


Nope, I have not problems with it at all, I simply went back and got the correct revision to show you, as you WRONGLY stated that is not what the IRM provides, you failed to notice the dates of the revision being referenced.

Concerns establish the relevance of facts in-review, e.g., oranges are sweet, this is a fact, but has no relevance to the concerns as presented here.

Again, you are singularly focusing upon a very specific aspect as justification for all else being wrong—an oversight that leaves you wanting.

----------


## Weston White

> “half of income taxes collected by the federal government go to interest on the national debt and welfare.”


But the income tax is collected as its own class from FICA, FUTA, and other federal taxes, making this an admission that income taxes are later collected to cover for FICA taxes previously collected and spend out of the general fund as all such taxes are not earmarked, but essentially remain as slush funds.

----------


## Weston White

> Actually, tax withholding is the law:


Oh wow, look somebody quoted to Subtitle C, well guess the matter is all solved now.  Gee, why didn't someone think of doing this earlier, could have saved us all tons of wasted effort.

----------


## erowe1

> ...And meanwhile how much did the national debt grow? By over $1-trillion, yes?


No. About half that. Why?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> 1. My name is not “Weiss” you arrogant sicko—unlike you I hide behind no myriad of handles nor do I hide behind fictions.


I wasn't referring to you, you pathetic narcissist.  That is, unless you use "Adele Weiss" as a pseudonym.




> But the income tax is collected as its own class from FICA, FUTA, and other federal taxes, making this an admission that income taxes are later collected to cover for FICA taxes previously collected and spend out of the general fund as all such taxes are not earmarked, but essentially remain as slush funds.


Nonsensical gibberish.  FICA and FUTA taxes are not income taxes.  They are payable regardless of whether one has taxable income.

----------


## Weston White

> No. About half that. Why?


Nope, it is $1-trillion or more each and every year, as it has been exponentially increasing since 9/11.

----------


## Weston White

> Nonsensical gibberish.


Nope, not at all.  Gee, I should charge you a buck each time that you regurgitate that tired old line on me--say for your next handle might I suggest Kobayashi Maru? 




> FICA and FUTA taxes are not income taxes.


That is what I had stated, they are not income taxes per se; however, they are essentially, sub-classes of the income tax--as a chicken and egg metaphor.




> They are payable regardless of whether one has taxable income.


Only for certain classes of individuals; however, for most Americans they are voluntary federal entitlement programs, and regardless if you have no filing or withholding requirements you have no FICA requirements (this is what Justice Roberts was on the very real verge of exposing in the Obamacare case before flipping with is very obvious lie of a finding)--with a caveat that most American businesses are on the hook for FUTA of course.

----------


## erowe1

> Nope, it is $1-trillion or more each and every year, as it has been exponentially increasing since 9/11.


Source?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Correct. 
> 
> As was revealed in the report from the Grace Commission.* 100% of all income tax collected goes directly to the Federal Reserve to pay the interest on the money they print*.


False. The Fed does not even keep the interest payments they do receive.   The Fed is paid interest on the $2.4 trillion in Treasuries they currently own but all of their profits (including other sources besides interest on US Treasuries) after expenses is turned over to the US Treasury at the end of the year. This year that was $97 billion. 

It is also untrue that 100% of income taxes goes to paying any interest.  In 2015, $420 billion was spent on interest on the debt (the Fed has about 12% of all of the US debt that money went towards)  https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ir_expense.htm  and in 2015 income tax revenues 

while income tax revenues were $1.5 trillion.  https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsre...mt/mts0915.pdf

----------


## Zippyjuan

What the Grace Report actually said:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grace_Commission




> The report said that one-third of all income taxes are consumed by waste and inefficiency in the federal government, and another one-third escapes collection owing to the underground economy. “With two thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely *by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments*. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government


1984 budget breakdown:  http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/87/1984

Revenues:

Individual Income Taxes: $541 billion (45% of revenues)
Payroll Taxes (things like Social Security):  $434 billion (36%)

Spending: 

Interest on the Debt: $201 billion (13%)
Medicare and Health: $159 billion (10%)
Social Security: $528 billion (34%)

If you separate Social Security on both sides, then we had $541 billion in income taxes and $360 in interest and medical expenses.  So the statement was untrue then as well.

----------


## Danke

FICA is an income tax.

----------


## Zippyjuan

True but it is usually counted separately.

----------


## angelatc

> Nope, I have not problems with it at all, I simply went back and got the correct revision to show you, as you WRONGLY stated that is not what the IRM provides, you failed to notice the dates of the revision being referenced.
> 
> Concerns establish the relevance of facts in-review, e.g., oranges are sweet, this is a fact, but has no relevance to the concerns as presented here.
> 
> Again, you are singularly focusing upon a very specific aspect as justification for all else being wrongan oversight that leaves you wanting.


The very specific aspect, the fact that I am focusing on, is the fact that the form referenced does not pertain to income tax withholding.  It pertains to debt repayment.  It has nothing to do with mandatory payroll income tax withholding.

----------


## angelatc

> Oh wow, look somebody quoted to Subtitle C, well guess the matter is all solved now.  Gee, why didn't someone think of doing this earlier, could have saved us all tons of wasted effort.


Or someone could explain why they believe it doesn't mean what it says, and provide some case law or legal cites to reinforce their position.

----------


## angelatc

> " 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely *by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments"*
> 
> 1984 budget breakdown:  http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/87/1984
> 
> *Revenues:
> *
> Individual Income Taxes: $541 billion (45% of revenues)
> Payroll Taxes (things like Social Security):  *$434 billion* (36%)
> 
> ...


Transfer payments are defined as income redistribution.  So I don't understand how you can take out SS on both sides.  You can take it out on the income side, but  SS had $434 billion in and $528 billion out, a deficit of $94 billion.

But even that doesn't seem to make the statement, "_100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments,"_ true.

$541 b   Income tax collected
$201 b   Interest on debt
$ 94 b    SS deficit

 Maybe they're counting some healthcare spending in there somewhere?  I don't see how that would qualify as a transfer payment, since there is an exchange of goods and services.

----------


## Weston White

> Source?


http://www.usdebtclock.org/

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo5.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/




> $2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

----------


## Weston White

You have three key issues for which to content:

1.  The growing accrual of interest on existing and new debt.
2.  The annually increasing debt and Congress's raising of governmental debt limits.
3.  The desire for the Federal Reserve System to ensconce its books and policies from the public--and Congress's supporting of this.

----------


## Weston White

> The very specific aspect, the fact that I am focusing on, is the fact that the form referenced does not pertain to income tax withholding.  It pertains to debt repayment.  It has nothing to do with mandatory payroll income tax withholding.



Great, so you agree with the rest of the article then.  Excellente!

----------


## Weston White

> Or someone could explain why they believe it doesn't mean what it says, and provide some case law or legal cites to reinforce their position.


Certainly, notice the context and very specific subject-matter of this--notice what is missing:




> (a). 26 CFR § 601.101(a) – ‘Introduction’: “General. The Internal Revenue Service is a
> bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the
> Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of
> the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal
> revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are
> performed. Within an *internal revenue district* the internal revenue laws are
> administered by a district director of internal revenue.
> 
> The Director, Foreign Operations District, administers the internal revenue laws
> ...


The context provided to the above regulatory general procedures is especially disconcerting in that both nonresident aliens and foreign corporations (including withholding provisions) is already thoroughly addressed in 26 CFR §§ 1.871-1, 1.1441-0, et seq. See also 26 USC § 7701(a)(16), therein providing only a very narrow definition of what is termed a withholding agent that is in context to the above regulation: “The term “withholding agent” means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.” Neither is there any such statutory provision for guiding those not meeting this limited scope, as show below.

i. Ibid, § 1441 – ‘Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens’
ii. Ibid, § 1442 – ‘Withholding of tax on foreign corporations’
iii. Ibid, § 1443 – ‘Foreign tax-exempt organizations’
iv. Ibid, § 1461 – ‘Liability for withheld tax’


And in Carmichael v. Southern Coal and Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 513-514 (1937) that:




> “The taxation of employees is not prerequisite to enjoyment of the benefits of the Social Security Act. The collection and expenditure of the tax on employers do not depend upon taxing the employees, and we find nothing in the language of the statute or its application to suggest that the tax on employees is so essential to the operation of the statute as to restrict the effect of the separability clause [Section 19]. Distinct taxes imposed by a single statute are not to be deemed inseparable unless that conclusion is unavoidable. See Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 143 U. S. 697; Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506.



* Further, that the four national regions and thirty-three ‘Internal Revenue Districts’ delegated under ‘Executive Order 10289’ (E.O.) that are respective to 26 USC § 7621(a), have been terminated as of March 9, 2001 through ‘Treasury Order 150-02(18)’ (T.O.), which thereby cancelled Treasury Order 150-01 in its entirety. See also: 4 USC § 72 – ‘Public offices; at seat of Government’; 26 USC § 7601(a) – ‘Canvass of districts for taxable persons and objects’.

Concluding that the rulemaking powers vested to E.O. 10289 within the ‘Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules’ (PTOA) pertain solely to 19 CFR, Part 101 – ‘General provisions’; which in-part sets forth the authority for Customs Officers and their locations of prescribed operation which are (i.e., 19 CFR § 101.0 – ‘Scope’): (1) “Customs ports of entry”, (2) “service ports”, and (3) “Customs stations”. Therefore, all employees, agents, or officers of the IRS when traversing exterior to the District of Columbia—or otherwise its designated “National Headquarters”—may only carry out the lawful course of their prescribed administrative duties or functions while either in the presence of a Customs Officer who are themselves as well engaged in carrying out the lawful course of their own prescribed duties or functions, or from within a designated: “Customs port of entry”, “service port”, or “Customs station”.


**  Also noting that IRS foreign status certificate, Form W-8BEN, stipulates for those who are either a “U.S. citizen or other U.S. person” to instead use IRS Form W-9, which is a request for a TIN—Taxpayer Identification Number.

***  Mr. Dave Champion argued a point of the above in the case against him with the IRS and he is still a free man selling his overpriced tax book.

----------


## erowe1

> http://www.usdebtclock.org/
> 
> https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo5.htm
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/


So, like I said, less than half a Trillion. Did you see something in there that said it was more?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

None of Mr. White's gibberish explains why Sections 3102(a) and 3402(a), previously cited by TheUglyTruth, don't apply to people working in the 50 States.  The plain fact is, they do.

----------


## Weston White

> So, like I said, less than half a Trillion. Did you see something in there that said it was more?


Geez dude, go enroll in a math 101 course please.  Further, this does not take into account the U.S. international debt holdings, notice the missing $2.3 trillion is not depicted between 2000-2002, and shenanigans such as this:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tere...18112975000000


2016-2001 = 16-years.


Debt counter:

From 9/15: $18.2
As of 4/16: $19.3


2001: $5.8
2016: $19.3

Total: $13.5~ The grows larger and larger with each passing year, this is emphasized by reviewing 2007 to the present--in excess of ONE-TRILLION.

----------


## angelatc

> Great, so you agree with the rest of the article then.  Excellente!


If that's how you took my statement, then it's no wonder you believe so much absolute bull$#@!.

----------


## Weston White

> None of Mr. White's gibberish explains why Sections 3102(a) and 3402(a), previously cited by TheUglyTruth, don't apply to people working in the 50 States.  The plain fact is, they do.


Certainly they do, as those laws were written for Americans, as the United States government has zero authority to command the people of any other nation; however, those 26 USC Sections are only applicable to very specific classes of wages and incomes or business activities.

----------


## Weston White

> If that's how you took my statement, then it's no wonder you believe so much absolute bull$#@!.


_Qui tacet consentire videtur_.  Love it or leave it hot-cakes.

----------


## angelatc

> None of Mr. White's gibberish explains why Sections 3102(a) and 3402(a), previously cited by TheUglyTruth, don't apply to people working in the 50 States.


There's a reason for that.




> The plain fact is, they do.


Yep.

----------


## angelatc

> _Qui tacet consentire videtur_.  Love it or leave it hot-cakes.


It was a logical fallacy, so.....

----------


## Weston White

> There's a reason for that.
> 
> Yep.


...Yep, and the article addresses that. ...As does my "gibberish."

----------


## Weston White

> It was a logical fallacy, so.....


If only because you decree it as so.  laff.

----------


## erowe1

> Geez dude, go enroll in a math 101 course please.  Further, this does not take into account the U.S. international debt holdings, notice the missing $2.3 trillion is not depicted between 2000-2002, and shenanigans such as this:
> 
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tere...18112975000000
> 
> 
> 2016-2001 = 16-years.
> 
> 
> Debt counter:
> ...


Your claim was:



> Nope, it is $1-trillion or more each and every year, as it has been exponentially increasing since 9/11.


You also singled out the budget year of 2015 in post #50 as one where the debt grew by more than $1 Trillion.

So now I guess you're retracting those claims?

I'm not sure why you would have made this post, complete with telling yourself to enroll in math 101, unless that's your reason.

You also never answered my question about the relevance of the debt increase. I asked that because I don't see what it has to do with your original claim that 100% of income tax revenue goes to paying interest on the debt. Was your point that you really meant to say that 100% of income tax revenue minus the annual increase of the debt is less than the interest on the debt?

----------


## Weston White

> Your claim was:
> 
> You also singled out the budget year of 2015 in post #50 as one where the debt grew by more than $1 Trillion.
> 
> So now I guess you're retracting those claims?
> 
> I'm not sure why you would have made this post, complete with telling yourself to enroll in math 101, unless that's your reason.
> 
> You also never answered my question about the relevance of the debt increase. I asked that because I don't see what it has to do with your original claim that 100% of income tax revenue goes to paying interest on the debt. Was your point that you really meant to say that 100% of income tax revenue minus the annual increase of the debt is less than the interest on the debt?


Remember in 2015 the debt clock was frozen for many weeks, and also covertly rolled back.  It is fact, the national debt averages over $1-trillion in new debt each year that is over more than a decade now--sure there are years were it is claimed just under a trillion dollars in new debt, while other years new debt breaks that trillion threshold.

I don't think I made the claim that your asserting; however, that claim is depicted within the findings of the Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (PSSCC)_The Grace Commission Report_, viz., nearly each dollar taxed is owed to interest on the accruing national debtand that was in 1982!

My point is that this debt CANNOT ever be repaid, it is an anchor around the necks of the entire populace and their progeny.  The point can be observed in this:




> It is a wise rule and should be fundamental in a government disposed to cherish its credit, and at the same time to restrain the use of it within the limits of its faculties, "never to borrow a dollar without laying a tax in the same instant for paying the interest annually, and the principal within a given term; and to consider that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith." On such a pledge as this, sacredly observed, a government may always command, on a reasonable interest, all the lendable money of their citizens, while the necessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them and their constituents against oppressions, bankruptcy, and its inevitable consequence, revolution. But the term of redemption must be moderate, and at any rate within the limits of their rightful powers. But what limits, it will be asked, does this prescribe to their powers? What is to hinder them from creating a perpetual debt? The laws of nature, I answer. The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead. ... The generations of men may be considered as bodies or corporations. Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its continuance. When it ceases to exist, the usufruct passes on to the succeeding generation, free and unincumbered, and so on, successively, from one generation to another forever. We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country. Or the case may be likened to the ordinary one of a tenant for life, who may hypothecate the land for his debts, during the continuance of his usufruct; but at his death, the reversioner (who is also for life only) receives it exonerated from all burthen.


http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents...on/jefl219.php

This is the future of our currency, nonconvertible, fiat money that nobody wants:

----------


## Working Poor

I want to point out that the IRS does not care what the laws says. If you try this with your business it will very likely  be shut down so just be careful. Note also that the person who wrote this is living in Paris. I worked for someone who tried this one morning while customers were sitting getting read to eat a bunch of heavily armed men came in pointing their weapons it was scary as hell we thought we were being robbed. Turns out it was the IRS so actually we were being robbed. They shut us down and took every stick of furniture and equipment, locked the doors  and put almost 50 people out of work. Below is a comment from the article:




> I did this in the 90's with a tax attorney and all the legal paperwork. IRS came & shut my business down, confiscated all my equipment, emptied my bank accounts, & fined me $80,000.00. Tax attorney was thrown in prison (I think he's still there) and I was forced out of business. It's true it's all legal, but the IRS has the ability to break you in legal fees and come and close your business, confiscate your personal property and make you prove your innocence. You're guilty till proven innocent. Word to the wise, don't do it unless you're ready for a living hell!

----------


## erowe1

> I don't think I made the claim that your asserting


I quoted your exact words.

----------


## angelatc

> If only because you decree it as so.  laff.


Uh, no. Not because I decreed it so.  Because it is what it is.  I said a specific point was incorrect.  You said that meant therefore I agreed that that the rest of the article was correct. That's an error in reasoning, aka a logical fallacy.

----------


## ZENemy

T.i.T

----------


## Jamesiv1

@Weston White

You seem to think these guys are going to follow the rules, or you're going to catch these guys on some kind of legal technicality.

THEY WANT YOUR MONEY!! THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR MONEY!!  or make your life hell (and the lives of people you love).

These people are crooks, thugs, thieves, out-laws.  They make the laws, and they will break the laws whenever it suits their whole reason for being which is TAKING YOUR MONEY!!!

It's not complicated.

----------


## erowe1

> @Weston White
> 
> You seem to think these guys are going to follow the rules, or you're going to catch these guys on some kind of legal technicality.
> 
> THEY WANT YOUR MONEY!! THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR MONEY!!  or make your life hell (and the lives of people you love).
> 
> These people are crooks, thugs, thieves, out-laws.  They make the laws, and they will break the laws whenever it suits their whole reason for being which is TAKING YOUR MONEY!!!
> 
> It's not complicated.


Seriously.

These tax law loophole gurus always ignore the most relevant question: Will following their interpretation of the law keep me out of prison? If the answer is no, then what's the point? They're just charlatans trying to sell you a useless product.

----------


## devil21

> Seriously.
> 
> These tax law loophole gurus always ignore the most relevant question: Will following their interpretation of the law keep me out of prison? If the answer is no, then what's the point? They're just charlatans trying to sell you a useless product.


So, in other words, give in to the fear of force and stop talking about it entirely?  You don't think we got into this situation in the first place by the use of fear?




dun dun dun

----------


## erowe1

> So, in other words, give in to the fear of force and stop talking about it entirely?  You don't think we got into this situation in the first place by the use of fear?


You can be a tax resister. I admire that if you are. 

You can recruit others to join you.

Just don't do that by way of lies. When these gurus trick people into thinking the state's laws are on their side, when they know full well that their tricks won't keep them out of prison, they're lying.

----------


## devil21

> You can be a tax resister. I admire that if you are. 
> 
> You can recruit others to join you.
> 
> Just don't do that by way of lies. When these gurus trick people into thinking the state's laws are on their side, when they know full well that their tricks won't keep them out of prison, they're lying.


For every doom story of a tax resistor ending up in prison, I've read way more accounts of people getting the IRS off their backs simply by using informed arguments and taking the correct legal steps.  All the fear is intentionally overblown and agents of the system go out of their way to publicize the negative outcomes (like Wesley Snipes) while completely ignoring the successes.

----------


## erowe1

> For every doom story of a tax resistor ending up in prison, I've read way more accounts of people getting the IRS off their backs simply by using informed arguments and taking the correct legal steps.  All the fear is intentionally overblown and agents of the system go out of their way to publicize the negative outcomes (like Wesley Snipes) while completely ignoring the successes.


I'd like to see documentation of all these cases of people using whatever arguments you're talking about.

----------


## Danke

> I'd like to see documentation of all these cases of people using whatever arguments you're talking about.


http://www.losthorizons.com/BulletinBoard.htm

Or check out David Merrill

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/cmps_index.php

----------


## erowe1

> http://www.losthorizons.com/BulletinBoard.htm


Were any of those people audited? If so, what were the results? I couldn't find anything mentioning that.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Were any of those people audited? If so, what were the results? I couldn't find anything mentioning that.


To see the utter failure of Hendrickson's scam, read this.  Scroll down to "Disciples/Associates/Victims":  http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

Hendrickson's bogus theory didn't prevent him from getting a 27 month sentence for filing false returns and refund claims.

----------


## erowe1

> To see the utter failure of Hendrickson's scam, read this.  Scroll down to "Disciples/Associates/Victims":  http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson
> 
> Hendrickson's bogus theory didn't prevent him from getting a 27 month sentence for filing false returns and refund claims.


Thanks for the link.

So we can add Hendrickson's own case and those of a bunch of his followers to the list of people who tried a certain variety of legal argument to get out of paying income taxes and didn't get away with it.

I'm still wondering, where are all these examples of any of these legal arguments actually holding up in court?

----------


## devil21

> To see the utter failure of Hendrickson's scam, read this.  Scroll down to "Disciples/Associates/Victims":  http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson
> 
> Hendrickson's bogus theory didn't prevent him from getting a 27 month sentence for filing false returns and refund claims.


I don't know the history of that particular case or that individual but it's just one more example of highlighting a negative outcome while positive outcomes are suppressed.  It's shocking that a jury of "taxpayers" convicted someone that apparently didn't want to wear his chains as tightly as they did 

Taxation is based on an individual consenting to the IRS regulations through their use of a Social Security number and the legal fiction all capital letter name that everyone sees on their drivers license (also a voluntary contract), among other examples, but doesn't realize that it doesn't identify them.  It identifies a legal entity created from the birth record issued by the hospital.  By identifying yourself as the number and the name, you claim yourself as representative (trustee status) of the legal entity and therefore are liable individually for any taxation assessed to the legal entity.  It's all voluntary contracts that people unknowingly agree to because that's "how it's done".  They never stop and ask "why?"

The solution to that problem is rather self-evident.  Rescind the instruments and cancel the contracts that bind the individual to the regulations.  There is no jurisdiction after that.

eta:  Danke's video above is also an important part of the whole picture, regarding using the private credit aka FRN.

----------


## Danke

> I don't know the history of that particular case or that individual but it's just one more example of highlighting a negative outcome while positive outcomes are suppressed.  It's shocking that a jury of "taxpayers" convicted someone that apparently didn't want to wear his chains as tightly as they did 
> 
> Taxation is based on an individual consenting to the IRS regulations through their use of a Social Security number and the legal fiction all capital letter name that everyone sees on their drivers license (also a voluntary contract), among other examples, but doesn't realize that it doesn't identify them.  It identifies a legal entity created from the birth record issued by the hospital.  By identifying yourself as the number and the name, you claim yourself as representative (trustee status) of the legal entity and therefore are liable individually for any taxation assessed to the legal entity.  It's all voluntary contracts that people unknowingly agree to because that's "how it's done".  They never stop and ask "why?"
> 
> The solution to that problem is rather self-evident.  Rescind the instruments and cancel the contracts that bind the individual to the regulations.  There is no jurisdiction after that.
> 
> eta:  Danke's video above is also an important part of the whole picture, regarding using the private credit aka FRN.


Every tax, like a property tax or a sales tax etc. is just imposed.   You get a bill. But the income tax requires you to self-report and give your signature testifying to the fact of what your taxable income is. Why don't they just send you a bill like other taxes? Because if they did that they would be liable for the fraud they are committing.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't know the history of that particular case or that individual but it's just one more example of highlighting a negative outcome while positive outcomes are suppressed.


Then by all means, please stop suppressing them. What positive outcomes?

----------


## devil21

> Then by all means, please stop suppressing them. What positive outcomes?


Guess you didn't look at anything Danke posted if you're still asking that.

----------


## erowe1

> Guess you didn't look at anything Danke posted if you're still asking that.


I did. Like I said, I couldn't find any examples there of people who got audited and how it turned out. Do you have that info?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Taxation is based on an individual consenting to the IRS regulations through their use of a Social Security number and the legal fiction all capital letter name that everyone sees on their drivers license (also a voluntary contract), among other examples, but doesn't realize that it doesn't identify them.  It identifies a legal entity created from the birth record issued by the hospital.  By identifying yourself as the number and the name, you claim yourself as representative (trustee status) of the legal entity and therefore are liable individually for any taxation assessed to the legal entity.  It's all voluntary contracts that people unknowingly agree to because that's "how it's done".  They never stop and ask "why?"
> 
> The solution to that problem is rather self-evident.  Rescind the instruments and cancel the contracts that bind the individual to the regulations.  There is no jurisdiction after that.
> 
> eta:  Danke's video above is also an important part of the whole picture, regarding using the private credit aka FRN.


The federal income tax predates the Fed by 52 years and Social Security by 74 years.  Any attempt to link it to either of these displays sheer ignorance.  And the all-caps stuff is mindless absurdity.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Why don't they just send you a bill like other taxes?


Because they don't know all of your income and deductions.

----------


## ghengis86

> Because they don't know all of your income and deductions.


How is that my problem?  And how can I be held liable and incriminate myself if I make an "error" when "they don't know all of your income and deductions"?

I think I'm going to identify as a single black female with 11 kids and never pay taxes, plus get the EIC.

----------


## erowe1

> How is that my problem?  And how can I be held liable and incriminate myself if I make an "error" when "they don't know all of your income and deductions"?


They say it is your problem. They put people in prison for not cooperating with them.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I think I'm going to identify as a single black female with 11 kids and never pay taxes, plus get the EIC.


Tax fraud is always an option, but not an advisable one.

----------


## angelatc

> I don't know the history of that particular case or that individual but it's just one more example of highlighting a negative outcome while positive outcomes are suppressed.  It's shocking that a jury of "taxpayers" convicted someone that apparently didn't want to wear his chains as tightly as they did 
> 
> Taxation is based on an individual consenting to the IRS regulations through their use of a Social Security number ....


No, that's just not right.  The Income tax predates SS, and even illegal aliens are required by law to pay income taxes.

----------


## angelatc

> How is that my problem?  And how can I be held liable and incriminate myself if I make an "error" when "they don't know all of your income and deductions"?
> .


It is your responsibility not to make errors.  It really is that simple.

----------


## devil21

> The federal income tax predates the Fed by 52 years and Social Security by 74 years.  Any attempt to link it to either of these displays sheer ignorance.  And the all-caps stuff is mindless absurdity.





> No, that's just not right. The Income tax predates SS, and even illegal aliens are required by law to pay income taxes.


Quite obviously I was referring to the modern iteration of federal income tax, which is a user fee/tribute to the bankers for the use of their private credit currency.  I guess it wasn't so obvious after all.  

As a side note, can't say I ever thought I'd read such fierce defenses of banker instituted income taxes, collected by a private collection company called the IRS, on a forum called Liberty Forest.  Not much surprises me anymore though.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> As a side note, can't say I ever thought I'd read such fierce defenses of banker instituted income taxes, collected by a private collection company called the IRS, on a forum called Liberty Forest.  Not much surprises me anymore though.


Criticizing astonishingly inane and slightly paranoid theories about the income tax isn't equivalent to defending it.

----------


## angelatc

> Criticizing astonishingly inane and slightly paranoid theories about the income tax isn't equivalent to defending it.


This.  Putting forth the "it's ilegal!" arguments only serves to make libertarians to look foolish.

----------


## devil21

> This.  Putting forth the "it's ilegal!" arguments only serves to make libertarians to look foolish.


Oh that old canard.  

Trolls gonna troll.  All I am posting is based in documented history.  Best you have is ad hominems and pointing to statutes that only apply to certain definitions of people.  

Answer me this:  Why did Harry Reid say that income tax is voluntary?  Perhaps you should argue with Senator Reid instead of Weston and me.



------------------------
Also, speaking of "libertarians".  Are you and Sonny sure you're on the correct forum?

http://www.hourofthetime.com/majestyt.htm




> There will be no individual Rights only privileges. These will be granted or denied at will by the world supra government. All property is to be owned by the State. There will be a redistribution of wealth. They plan to eliminate class differences and reduce the standard of living to a lower level in the advanced nations, such as the united States, and to a higher standard of living in the so-called third world nations. This leveling of the standard of living will be accomplished through a global economic collapse which is in its beginning stages. *The economic collapse will fulfill the goal of Marx and Engles' Communist Manifesto mandating the elimination of the middle class. The graduated income tax was the first implementation of this process and is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.* NAFTA and GATT are a part of this process encouraging industry to move into third-world nations in order to exploit cheap labor.
> 
> All existing religions will disappear. The only religion will be the state religion (humanism or illuminism).
> 
> All County and State governments will be eliminated and replaced with regional government. These regional governments (Home Rule) are already in place. Regionalism is gradually taking control throughout America.
> 
> There will be no more cash. Trade will be accomplished by a system of computer credits with accounts accessed through debit cards or computer chip implants. The cards or implants will also serve as personal identification, drivers license, and etc. When this is completed the human race will be shackled to a computer in a never ending cycle of debt. No action or movement will ever again be private.
> 
> MUCH more at link....everyone should read this link!  Those paying attention can see much of this starting to be implemented _right now_

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Like I stated below, "The Law" (if one exists which I would argue it does not) DOES NOT MATTER.  These are goons with guns and they will break your legs and burn down your house if you don't pay the extortion money.  There are NO "magic words" one can say that will change that.  The "change" will come when the system collapses which I hope will be soon...




> Yes, most all of these arguments about "laws" and "definitions" are valid. 
> 
> No, the "goonerment" does not give a damn and will lock you up anyway.  Ask Irwin Schiff R.I.P.
> 
> I did not file or pay for over 20 years (about 1977 to 2000).  Eventually I had to pay because my wife became a doctor and doctors pretty much have to show their "tax returns" to do any business.  The goons would have caught up with me at some point anyway so we started filing when she began her practice.  Our first return was 2004 and since we really did have NO income that year (or the next 2 because we were operating in the red) we filed returns that reflected this.  The goons of course wanted to see past returns which I had not filed.  They contacted us wanting returns for the last 5 years and I told them I did not have records for those years.  They said they had records of our "income" so I said "Great.  Why don't you prepare them and we will pay".  That's exactly what they did.  They prepared substitute returns for us and we paid what they thought we owed.  I can say that even though I did not have exact records for those years the goons missed a lot of what we made so the "bill" even with penalties and interest was actually a good bit less than what we would have had to pay if we had dutifully filed those years...
> 
> Now of course we have a CPA doing our taxes and we just send in about half of everything we make to the goons as "protection money" so they don't come and break our legs and burn down our home and business.  
> 
> I knew Irwin and read all his books and followed all his advice.  I fared much better than he did as the leader of the tax freedom movement.  What I learned through all of this is that "laws" are fiction.  They don't exist except for in the mind of the believer and the IRS goons DO NOT believe in any "law".  They only believe in using threat and pain to extract money from the masses.  Irwin's term "The Federal Mafia" fits perfectly...

----------


## osan

Gotta pay your fair share.

----------


## osan

> For 2015 the income tax brought in 1.5 Trillion, and federal payment of interest was 200 Billion.
> 
> So, whether the Grace Commission was right about that when they said it (when interest rates were in the double digits) or not, I don't know. But it's not something you can just say as a general fact as if it's true every year.



What you say is true in principle, but is it so in fact?  The answer depends on what is done with the other 1.3 trillion.  So far as I can see, it is spent on running the empire, which perforce implies it is not being used to pay down the principle, which in turn continues to grow and, therefore, renders the contested assertion effectively true.

Devil is in the details.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Why did Harry Reid say that income tax is voluntary?  Perhaps you should argue with Senator Reid instead of Weston and me.


Perhaps you should listen to what Reid says at 2:15 -- if one doesn't pay his taxes he is subject to civil and criminal penalties.  Does that sound like taxes are merely a voluntary donation?

----------


## devil21

> Perhaps you should listen to what Reid says at 2:15 -- if one doesn't pay his taxes he is subject to civil and criminal penalties.  Does that sound like taxes are merely a voluntary donation?


No they are not voluntary _if_ one falls under the definition of a "taxpayer", which is a voluntary class, therefore making taxation voluntary as Reid stated.  You seem to have trouble grasping that part.  If you'd like to discuss what makes one fall under that definition (or not), we can.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> a "taxpayer", which is a voluntary class


A taxpayer is anyone subject to a tax. Ignorant tax protesters (a redundant term) delude themselves into thinking this means that one must first be a taxpayer before one owes tax.  But this is incorrect:




> Tax protesters think that, if they are not a “taxpayer,” they are not subject to the federal income tax. But that’s backwards, because the important question is whether or not you are subject to tax. Unable to find any authority that they are exempt or immune from tax, the protesters resort to word games to try to escape their tax liabilities.
> 
> And so the courts haven’t had much patience with this “argument.”
> 
> “Plaintiff claims on appeal that he is not a taxpayer subject to IRS jurisdiction.... Plaintiff’s claim that he is not a taxpayer is unsupported and frivolous.”  Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986). See also, Martin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 756 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1985).
> 
> 
> “Drefke argues that taxes are debts which can only be imposed voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services and that those who choose to enter such contracts do so by signing 1040 and W-4 forms. By refusing to sign those forms, Drefke argues that he is ‘immune’ from the Internal Revenue Service’s jurisdiction as a ‘nontaxpayer.’  
> 
> ...


http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#taxpayer

----------


## Danke

> No they are not voluntary _if_ one falls under the definition of a "taxpayer", which is a voluntary class, therefore making taxation voluntary as Reid stated.  You seem to have trouble grasping that part.  If you'd like to discuss what makes one fall under that definition (or not), we can.


It is voluntary as in it is the activity one voluntarily participates that makes their receipts taxable.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Reid considers taking the money before you get your paycheck "forced".  He considers you getting to pay them yourself later "voluntary".  Many would not agree with the way he is using the term in the video. He does agree that there are penalties if you do not pay your taxes owed.  He argues that it is "voluntary" in that you can change the amount of tax owed through some actions- deductions, exemptions.  In some cases, these can make your income taxes zero (In 2015 45% of income tax filers owed no net income taxes according to the IRS). http://wgntv.com/2016/04/13/nearly-h...tax-heres-why/

----------


## erowe1

> No they are not voluntary _if_ one falls under the definition of a "taxpayer", which is a voluntary class, therefore making taxation voluntary as Reid stated.  You seem to have trouble grasping that part.  If you'd like to discuss what makes one fall under that definition (or not), we can.


And people use this argument in court and avoid prison?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> And people use this argument in court and avoid prison?


The only cases I have been able to find where somebody is claimed to have "beaten" the IRS is over either deductions or penalties assessed.  I can't find one where the person was told they didn't have to file their taxes.

----------


## Danke

> The only cases I have been able to find where somebody is claimed to have "beaten" the IRS is over either deductions or penalties assessed.  I can't find one where the person was told they didn't have to file their taxes.


"file their taxes."


Losing position if one admits they have taxes due.

We have at least two here on RPFs that I know of who do not file.

----------


## erowe1

> We have at least two here on RPFs that do not file.


Have either of them been audited?

----------


## devil21

> And people use this argument in court and avoid prison?


If one is a "taxpayer" and doesn't pay, then no (though Reid himself said prison sentences almost never happen regardless).  That's the whole point.  Read the Federal Reserve Act 12 USC 411.  Lawful money is not taxable as it is not the private credit of the bankers.  It is the legal tender of the bankers that is taxable, since the income tax is the user fee (interest) for using their legal tender debt notes.

If none of that means anything to you then unfortunately you are way out of your element in this thread and probably should just keep on doing what you're doing and never think about income taxes again.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> If one is a "taxpayer" and doesn't pay, then no.  That's the whole point. * Read the Federal Reserve Act 12 USC 411.*  Lawful money is not taxable as it is not the private credit of the bankers.  It is the legal tender of the bankers that is taxable, since the income tax is the user fee (interest) for using their legal tender debt notes.
> 
> If none of that means anything to you then unfortunately you are way out of your element in this thread and probably should just keep on doing what you're doing and never think about income taxes again.


Let's see what that actually says. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411




> *Federal reserve notes*, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States *and shall be receivable* by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks *and for all taxes*, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.


Makes no references to income or income taxation other than to say the notes can be used to pay taxes. 

Did you mean some other law?  Rest of Federal Reserve Act:  https://www.federalreserve.gov/about.../section16.htm

(I don't find anything else in the rest of that either).

----------


## erowe1

> If one is a "taxpayer" and doesn't pay, then no.  That's the whole point.  Read the Federal Reserve Act 12 USC 411.  Lawful money is not taxable as it is not the private credit of the bankers.  It is the legal tender of the bankers that is taxable, since the income tax is the user fee (interest) for using their legal tender debt notes.
> 
> If none of that means anything to you then unfortunately you are way out of your element in this thread and probably should just keep on doing what you're doing and never think about income taxes again.


What's the point of using this argument if it results in your going to prison?

Is it possible that you're not as much in your element as you think you are, given that you have repeatedly claimed that people have succeeded at using your arguments in court, but you are unable to cite any examples of that?

----------


## devil21

> What's the point of using this argument if it results in your going to prison?
> 
> Is it possible that you're not as much in your element as you think you are, given that you have repeatedly claimed that people have succeeded at using your arguments in court, but you are unable to cite any examples of that?


Apparently I am talking to a brick wall and you have some fixation with prison.

I've said enough on this thread.  Can lead a horse to water blah blah.  Anybody that wants to know more is free to PM me.

It's hard to free people from the chains they revere.  When Zippy, erowe and angelatc are all defenders of the Communist Manifesto on Liberty Forest, we've officially entered bizarro world.

----------


## erowe1

> Apparently I am talking to a brickwall and you have some fixation with prison.


Staying out of prison is the whole point. If your arguments don't actually work in court, then they're pointless. This might have seemed like less of a fixation if you had cited your examples the first time I asked for them (after you had claimed there were many).

What are you going to do if you get audited and taken to court for having never filed income taxes, and the judge or jury don't accept your arguments? Are you just going to say, "You are out of your element, you need to read such-and-such."?

----------


## Zippyjuan

I am not arguing for or against taxes here.  I am arguing that you can't avoid them (legally).

----------


## Danke

What creates the liability to pay an income tax?

----------


## devil21

> Staying out of prison is the whole point. If your arguments don't actually work in court, then they're pointless. This might have seemed like less of a fixation if you had cited your examples the first time I asked for them (after you had claimed there were many).
> 
> What are you going to do if you get audited and taken to court for having never filed income taxes, and the judge or jury don't accept your arguments? Are you just going to say, "You are out of your element, you need to read such-and-such."?


The arguments aren't needed in court since there IS NO THREAT OF COURT IF YOU OPERATE LAWFULLY as a "nontaxpayer".  There is no judge or jury if you have operated within the law.  The law isn't "pay your taxes".  What part do you not grasp??  You're talking about court and prison, which is a possibility for someone that acts illegally.  It is not a possibility if someone is not a taxpayer, by definition.

Here, educate yourself:  https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/ctcforfree.pdf   Cracking the Code

If you post again and haven't read that then I'll know you have no interest in productive discussion, only disruption for some reason.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Short version- what is a "non-taxpayer"?  How does one establish themselves as one?  How many have successfully avoided having to file taxes without penalty?

----------


## erowe1

> The arguments aren't needed in court since there IS NO THREAT OF COURT IF YOU OPERATE LAWFULLY as a "nontaxpayer".


Why do you believe this?

Obviously it is a possibility, since some of the people who have followed the Cracking the Code approach, including its author, have been imprisoned for it.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Short version- what is a "non-taxpayer"?  How does one establish themselves as one?  How many have successfully avoided having to file taxes without penalty?  (noting that 45% of income tax filers owed no net income taxes last year)

http://www.constitutionpreservation....ws-prison-term




> '*Cracking the Code' author draws prison term*
> 
> Paul Egan / The Detroit News
> 
> Detroit -- A man whose claims that most earnings are not subject to income tax have drawn national attention was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison Monday by a federal judge.
> 
> Peter Hendrickson, 54, of Commerce Township, whose views on federal income tax are detailed in his book "Cracking the Code," was found guilty of 10 counts of filing false documents by a federal jury in October.
> 
> Chief U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen bristled when a courtroom full of Hendrickson's supporters burst into applause after the defendant's pre-sentencing speech and said Hendrickson has taken on the mantle of an anti-tax hero.
> ...


Have you followed his advice successfully?

----------


## Danke

> Short version- what is a "non-taxpayer"?  How does one establish themselves as one?  How many have successfully avoided having to file taxes without penalty?  (noting that 45% of income tax filers owed no net income taxes last year)
> 
> [url]http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/articles/may-7-2010/cracking-code-author-draws-prison-term[/url
> 
> Have you followed his advice successfully?


I have followed the cases against the Hendricksons. They never prove a tax liability

----------


## erowe1

> I have followed the cases against the Hendricksons. They never prove a tax liability


So they didn't go to prison?

----------


## Zippyjuan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...es-t.html?_r=0

(He did once send a bomb to an IRS office)




> There’s one thing, though, that has prevented Hendrickson’s complete metamorphosis from mail bomber to soccer dad: his views about the income tax. Although he *no longer contends that the tax is unconstitutional — a misguided notion, he says*, that led to his misguided actions of 19 years ago — he does believe the tax is grossly misapplied. The incomes of most Americans, he argues, aren’t legally subject to state or federal income tax. It’s a belief he has spelled out at some length in his book “Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America.” One part Talmudic reading of the tax code, one part populist jeremiad against “a swollen cadre of politically astute private interests and their camp-followers,” the book, which he self-published in 2003, claims to prove that the only income that’s taxable under the law is that which is paid out by the government in salaries, grants, investment dividends and other means.


He was inspired by Peter Schiff's dad (who also went to jail for his tax avoidance ideas).  




> Nathan Hochman, who until recently served as the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s tax division, notes that if a tax denier is taken to court, the odds are overwhelmingly against him. *“In over 95 percent of the cases that go to trial against tax defiers,”* he says, using the term that the Justice Department now prefers for tax deniers, “the government has convicted these folks.” Tax deniers often make the government’s case rather easy, as many base their defenses on the legally unsound arguments that got them in trouble in the first place. Some make it even easier by coming up with newer, even more frivolous arguments — like maintaining that if the American flag in the courtroom features gold fringe, then that flag is a “maritime flag of war” and the court therefore has no jurisdiction.
> 
> *When a prominent tax denier loses in court, it almost invariably spells the end of the popularity of whatever argument he was promoting. “Obviously, getting sentenced to 13 years in prison doesn’t really recommend you to anybody*,” says Dave Champion, a tax denier in California who runs a firm that advises individuals whom he insists on calling “nontaxpayers.” (“My adversary is the most powerful machine,” he cautions, “so I want to make clear I only work with nontaxpayers.”) *But while a criminal conviction causes a tax denier’s clients to lose faith in a particular guru, few of them lose faith in the movement as a whole. They simply go in search of a different guru with a different argument.* “They’re like a bunch of lost sheep,” says JJ MacNab, a financial planner who has testified on the tax-denial movement before the Senate Finance Committee. “And there are all these shepherds fighting with one another to bring them into their flocks.”
> 
> No tax denier has achieved more prominence than Irwin Schiff, the man whose writings helped spark Peter Hendrickson’s initial hostility toward the income tax. Schiff started his professional life conventionally enough: he ran an insurance brokerage firm in Connecticut. But after he lost his and his clients’ money in the late 1960s in a tax shelter that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, he entered the netherworld of the nascent tax-honesty movement. While many tax deniers at the time were farmers in the Dakotas who were responding to a foreclosure crisis, Schiff, who held an accounting degree from the University of Connecticut, had an aura of economic expertise.
> 
> Schiff also had the spirit — and business ethics — of a carnival barker. He wrote a half-dozen books, including the best seller “How Anyone Can Stop Paying Their Income Taxes.” He appeared on national TV shows like “Larry King Live” on CNN and “The Tomorrow Show” on NBC. When he wasn’t barnstorming the country conducting seminars, he was working out of a storefront office in Las Vegas, where, behind a giant sign that read, “Why Pay Income Taxes? When No Law Says You Have To?” he peddled his services. According to one estimate, he had more than 50,000 clients, a figure that’s even more remarkable when you consider he was operating in the pre-Internet era.
> 
> Schiff’s business model was cynical but clever. His books, which instructed readers on how to file what he called “zero returns” in order to qualify for refunds, went for a reasonable $35 or so. He made his real money on what his books wrought. As MacNab, who is writing a history of tax deniers, explains: “His readers would often have some initial success with those zero returns, but eventually they’d receive a letter from the I.R.S. alerting them that they’d made a frivolous tax argument, so they’d go back to Schiff and say, ‘What do I do?’ He’d say: ‘Oh, we have a form letter you can send in response to that. It’s an extra $50.’ And every time the thing escalated, Schiff’s next package cost a bit more money, all the way up to a $1,000 tax-court toolkit. The more desperate you got, the higher his prices went. A lot of people went to their ruin because of Schiff.”

----------


## Danke

> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...es-t.html?_r=0
> 
> (He did once send a bomb to an IRS office)


This thread is more and more approaching the stupid quotient. This has been discussed so many times here before. You guys can't read the material and know the history then nobody can help you. Enjoy your  slavery.

----------


## Jamesiv1

"Your Honor, my client does not owe taxes because he is lawfully operating as a non-taxpayer."

"Your client earned income, and he owes taxes on it."

"No.... you see, he is a non-taxpayer."

"Have a nice orange jumpsuit."

----------


## Danke

> "Your Honor, my client does not owe taxes because he is lawfully operating as a non-taxpayer."
> 
> "Your client earned income, and he owes taxes on it."
> 
> "No.... you see, he is a non-taxpayer."
> 
> "Have a nice orange jumpsuit."



Get a clue.  Can you say the same for a client in China you paid with FRNs?

----------


## devil21

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6331




> (a) Authority of Secretary
> 
> *If any person liable to pay any tax* neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. *Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.* If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.


Could it be that most people are employees of the United States (Inc.) but don't know it?  Hmm...

----------


## Contumacious

> What's the point of using this argument if it results in your going to prison?
> 
> Is it possible that you're not as much in your element as you think you are, given that you have repeatedly claimed that people have succeeded at using your arguments in court, but you are unable to cite any examples of that?


ANY argument in which you claim that you do not owe taxes will be ignored by the federal "judges" They have sworn to support and defend the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state . In their courts you lose.

----------


## Weston White

> I quoted your exact words.


No, I was referring to this, which is your own writing, not a quote of mine:




> I don't see what it has to do with your original claim that 100% of income tax revenue goes to paying interest on the debt.

----------


## Weston White

> Uh, no. Not because I decreed it so.  Because it is what it is.  I said a specific point was incorrect.  You said that meant therefore I agreed that that the rest of the article was correct. That's an error in reasoning, aka a logical fallacy.


No, you are fixating on a single, solitary point to thereby discount the whole of the article.  And I called you out on it, your well known laziness does not grant you exception to a well acknowledged principle, you want to be silent on the remainder, then you are determined to be in its agreement.  Such is by no means a logical fallacy.

ETA:

Now, if you wish only to argue only one or a few points that is perfectly fine and acceptable, but you have no entitlement to pooh-pooh the entire article in result.

----------


## Weston White

> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6331
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be that most people are employees of the United States (Inc.) but don't know it?  Hmm...


That is the curious thing about the individual income tax, for every other class of income tax it's both made "liable" and "imposed", with exception to the individual income tax, it is only "imposed", but never made "liable".

----------


## erowe1

> Get a clue.  Can you say the same for a client in China you paid with FRNs?


If he's wrong, then please cite the cases of that argument working in court.

----------


## Weston White

> The only cases I have been able to find where somebody is claimed to have "beaten" the IRS is over either deductions or penalties assessed.  I can't find one where the person was told they didn't have to file their taxes.


Of course you won't find any as such cases are unpublished opinions and/or are administrative court cases specific only to that individual plaintiff, such as via the U.S. Tax Court.

----------


## erowe1

> ANY argument in which you claim that you do not owe taxes will be ignored by the federal "judges" They have sworn to support and defend the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state . In their courts you lose.


Correct.

That's why these gurus who claim to have some way of avoiding income taxes by some construal of the written laws that those courts use are all con artists.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> ANY argument in which you claim that you do not owe taxes will be ignored by the federal "judges" They have sworn to support and defend the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state . In their courts you lose.


Bingo!  I've been trying to tell these people... "Laws" don't matter.  You are dealing with a criminal gang called the federal mafia.  Irwin was right in all his research about the "laws" and it did not help him one bit.  He was put in prison and he died there because the only mistake he made was thinking that the criminal gang would follow any "law".  The only "law" they follow is: "The meek are weak and the strong do eat"...

----------


## devil21

> Bingo!  I've been trying to tell these people... "Laws" don't matter.  You are dealing with a criminal gang called the federal mafia.  Irwin was right in all his research about the "laws" and it did not help him one bit.  He was put in prison and he died there because the only mistake he made was thinking that the criminal gang would follow any "law".  The only "law" they follow is: "The meek are weak and the strong do eat"...


Oh, so because there are political prisoners then being in the right is pointless and the knowledge should be forgotten and ignored?  I'm glad the Dali Lama, Nelson Mandela, Ron Paul and others didn't take that approach.  The world will turn into a very ugly place (see my post by William Cooper about the NWO) if everyone thinks like that.  There's something to be said for not making oneself a martyr and we all put up with the bull$#@! to various extents but attacking the messengers seems like really bad form and only further supports the tyranny.  The thieving bankers appreciate angelatc, erowe and others defeatist posts, I assure you.

A blast from the past for old RPFers:

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Lawful money is not taxable as it is not the private credit of the bankers.


Absolute nonsense.  It is the legal tender of the bankers that is taxable, since the income tax is the user fee (interest) for using their legal tender debt notes.




> If none of that means anything to you then unfortunately you are way out of your element in this thread and probably should just keep on doing what you're doing and never think about income taxes again.


If anyone is out of his element it's someone who believes in the bilge you posted, which is peddled by someone so deranged that he once sued his own motor scooter.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Could it be that most people are employees of the United States (Inc.) but don't know it?  Hmm...


Could it be that you didn't read the first sentence of the statute?  What part of "*any person*" did you not understand?

SCOTUS has explained the statute's reference to federal employees:




> Nor is there merit in petitioners contention that Congress, by specifically providing in 6331 for levy upon the accrued salaries of federal employees, but not mentioning state employees, evinced an intention to exclude the latter from levy. The explanation of that action by Congress appears quite clearly to be that this Court had held in Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388, that a federal disbursing officer might not, in the absence of express congressional authorization, set off an indebtedness of a federal employee to the Government against the employees salary, and, pursuant to that opinion, the Comptroller General ruled that an administrative official served with [notices of levy] would be without authority to withhold any portion of the current salary of such employee in satisfaction of the notices of levy and distraint. 26 Comp. Gen. 907, 912 (1947). It is evident that 6331 was enacted to overcome that difficulty and to subject the salaries of federal employees to the same collection procedures as are available against all other taxpayers, including employees of a State.  Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-113 (1959) (emphasis added)

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Of course you won't find any as such cases are unpublished opinions


Prove it.  Prove that anyone has successfully avoided the income tax by using any of the crackpot tax protester arguments.  Or are you one of those paranoid types who believes the absence of any such reported cases proves that there's a massive conspiracy to hide them?




> That is the curious thing about the individual income tax, for every other class of income tax it's both made "liable" and "imposed", with exception to the individual income tax, it is only "imposed", but never made "liable".


The fact that Section 6151 says that if someone has to file a return he SHALL PAY the tax and the fact that there are civil and criminal penalties for failing to do so would convince anyone of minimal intelligence that there is a liability.

----------


## Contumacious

> Prove it.  Prove that anyone has successfully avoided the income tax by using any of the crackpot tax protester arguments.  Or are you one of those paranoid types who believes the absence of any such reported cases proves that there's a massive conspiracy to hide them?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Section 6151 says that if someone has to file a return he SHALL PAY the tax and the fact that there are civil and criminal penalties for failing to do so would convince anyone of minimal intelligence that there is a liability.


Yo Vern,

what are  "crackpot tax protester arguments"?!?!?!?


.

----------


## tommyrp12

> Originally Posted by devil21 View Post 
> 
> Lawful money is not taxable as it is not the private credit of the bankers.





> Absolute nonsense.  It is the legal tender of the bankers that is taxable, since the income tax is the user fee (interest) for using their legal tender debt notes.



I'll admit I didn't read throught the whole thread but it seems that all you did here was confirm that the income tax is the user fee for using private credit. 
Meaning the lawful money has no such obligation attached to it. 

Unless you were just restating what the theory is I think we should all take note of the booby trap that is private credit.

----------


## devil21

> I'll admit I didn't read throught the whole thread but it seems that all you did here was confirm that the income tax is the user fee for using private credit. 
> Meaning the lawful money has no such obligation attached to it. 
> 
> Unless that is you were just restating what the theory is I think we all take note of the booby trap that is private credit.


Bingo.  Legally, a way to avoid the private credit of the bankers and therefore the user fee attached must be included in statute.  Otherwise it is an unconscionable contract which can not be enforced since there is no other choice.  Everything is based in commercial contract law now.  No one can force you to enter a contract and using the banker's private credit is agreeing to a contract even if you don't realize it.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  I don't personally have a problem with private credit and user fees but I do wish people were able to make an informed choice in the matter instead of being brainwashed into it and then being hamstrung when they run afoul of something they didn't even realize they were agreeing to.

Lawful money is legal tender but legal tender isn't necessarily lawful money.  Private banker credit is legal tender but is not lawful money unless it is specifically notated as lawful money per 12USC411.  A FRN is lawful money IF handled in accordance with 411.  If not in accordance then it is only legal tender, with user fee attached.




> Could it be that you didn't read the first sentence of the statute? What part of "any person" did you not understand?


Now we're getting to the meat.  This should be fun.  A 'person' means a corporate entity, not a flesh and blood human.  The key is to realize that the english that the average person speaks is not the english that a lawyer (someone that drafts legislation, for example) speaks.  What Joe Blow interprets as a person is not what a lawyer interprets as a person.  This is why Romney said "corporations are people".  Under legal terminology, he is correct.  The corporate entity 'person' the IRC refers to is the all capital letter "person" that everyone sees on their tax bills, their drivers license, their credit cards, etc.  That all capital letter "person" is not the living human that carries those items around.  The living human is (usually unknowingly) the representative of the all capital letter corporate entity that is created when the human's certificate of live birth is turned over to the state.  The state sends it on to the Feds, who turn it into a financial instrument and then turn it over as collateral to the bankers.  *Since practically everyone is securitized in this way as collateral against the debt, it means that practically everyone is actually a federal employee, since they are working to repay debt that the government accrues.*  Now 6331 should make more sense....

I'm sure you'll say that's all crackpot theory or whatever but it is historically factual and goes on every day.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> A 'person' means a corporate entity, not a flesh and blood human.


Wrong again.  The term is defined in IRC Section 77101(a)(1):




> The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.


"Individual" means a human being.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Yo Vern,
> 
> what are  "crackpot tax protester arguments"?!?!?!?.


Here's a whole list of them, along with their refutations:  http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Oh, so because there are political prisoners then being in the right is pointless and the knowledge should be forgotten and ignored?  I'm glad the Dali Lama, Nelson Mandela, Ron Paul and others didn't take that approach.  The world will turn into a very ugly place (see my post by William Cooper about the NWO) if everyone thinks like that.  There's something to be said for not making oneself a martyr and we all put up with the bull$#@! to various extents but attacking the messengers seems like really bad form and only further supports the tyranny.  The thieving bankers appreciate angelatc, erowe and others defeatist posts, I assure you.
> 
> A blast from the past for old RPFers:


Never said "being right" is pointless (indeed, the point I make is "right").  I said that my friend Irwin was "right" about the tax code and the "goons" didn't give a damn and they never will.  I don't want good people going to "court" thinking they have some magic words to say to the judge that will allow them to walk free when the goons want their money.  Ain't gonna happen.  Goons with guns win every time.

To make any change we need to say "no" in numbers that they cannot ignore.  We don't say "no" because some magic passage in the code says we can say "no".  We say "NO" because it's the right (moral) thing to do whether their damn "law" says it is or not.  It is RIGHT to keep your money and it's WRONG for them to steal it.  That is what people need to realize and when enough of the people wake up their goon squads won't be big enough to break our legs and burn down our houses.  THEN we win...

P.S. If I'm wrong then show me the 100's of "patriots" who have gone to court and won... Oh, ok, show me 10 who have won... 5???

----------


## erowe1

> Oh, so because there are political prisoners then being in the right is pointless and the knowledge should be forgotten and ignored?


When it comes to the arguments of the gurus who claim that federal laws do not require people who earn incomes to pay taxes, what it would mean for them to be in the right is that their arguments would actually work in court. That's it.

----------


## devil21

> Wrong again.  The term is defined in IRC Section 77101(a)(1):
> 
> 
> 
> "Individual" means a human being.


There is the "corporation" right there in the definition and I already explained how most humans are not "individuals", per that definition under the IRC, but are rather representatives of corporations (the all capital letter name) by unknowing consent.  Sure, a "person" _can_ be an individual under that definition but under the IRC most "persons" are *not* individuals.  The human is a representative of the corporate entity that the tax is being assessed to.  The tax is not being assessed to the human, it is being assessed to the corporation.

That definition can call a "person" a monkey with a hat on but if there are no monkeys with hats on then what difference does it make?  Btw, you're taking angelatc's route of picking out minutae to argue over and acting like it negates the entire post.  That's a sign of intellectual dishonesty and a losing argument.




> When it comes to the arguments of the gurus who claim that federal laws do not require people who earn incomes to pay taxes, what it would mean for them to be in the right is that their arguments would actually work in court. That's it.


That is a fair enough assessment, however where most screw up is that showing up in court in the first place generally means admitting to being the representative of the corporate entity that I described in my last couple posts.  

Judge: "Are you erowe1?"
erowe1: "Yes and here's my argument....."

You just f'ed up already by identifying yourself as the representative of the all capital letter corporate name that the tax is being assessed to.  You took on the role as surety.  One of the earlier posters was on the right track in saying that justice won't be found in their courts.  I think you previously attributed some statement about court victories to me that I never claimed.  I said some have prevailed against the IRS and Danke posted a link to some of them.  Seems you turned it into something about court cases and prison and whatnot.

----------


## Contumacious

> Here's a whole list of them, along with their refutations:  http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html


The website identifies the first constitutional fallacies as 

The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.

Bull$#@!

1- CERTIFIED Historical EVIDENCE shows that the 16A was NOT adopted

2- the tax is on income not principal , ie, wages

3- the tax exempts incomes of less that  $4000 (in 2010 dollars that is $374,000.00

So f u c k you and the miserable pieces of s h i t who claim to be Article III "judges"

.

----------


## devil21

Constitutional arguments are a losing proposition in court because the Constitution is no longer the law of the land and therefore not "law" in courts.  Courts are commercial courts under UCC, not common law.  Like I said, it's all commerce now.  The Constitution is only a guideline but is not binding.  How many know that the original Constitution wasn't only replaced with a new Constitution but an entire amendment was removed before it was replaced?  The history of this land mass known as America (but is really United States Inc.) isn't what most people believe it is, because they are taught LIES from day one.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The human is a representative of the corporate entity that the tax is being assessed to.  The tax is not being assessed to the human, it is being assessed to the corporation.


The IRC includes alimony in gross income.  Since when did corporations begin receiving alimony?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> 1- CERTIFIED Historical EVIDENCE shows that the 16A was NOT adopted  
> 
> 2- the tax is on income not principal , ie, wages
> 
> 3- the tax exempts incomes of less that  $4000 (in 2010 dollars that is $374,000.00.


Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1.  The 16th was indeed ratified.  But the 16th wasn't necessary to tax wages, since the Supreme Court upheld the Civil War income tax in 1880 based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.  The only reason the 16th was adopted was to overturn an 1895 case in which the Court held that a tax on investment income (but not wages) was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.

2.  The argument that wages aren't income is one of the most brain-dead claims out there.  It has been consistently rejected by the courts, and people who continue to raise it are often fined by the court for wasting their time with such frivolous arguments.

3.  Guess again.  The $4,000 exemption for a married couple under the 1913 tax act (long since repealed) equates to $96,671 in today's dollars.  But the Constitution doesn't mandate any particular exemption amount.

----------


## Contumacious

> Constitutional arguments are a losing proposition in court because the Constitution is no longer the law of the land and therefore not "law" in courts.  Courts are commercial courts under UCC, not common law.  Like I said, it's all commerce now.  The Constitution is only a guideline but is not binding.  How many know that the original Constitution wasn't only replaced with a new Constitution but an entire amendment was removed before it was replaced?  The history of this land mass known as America (but is really United States Inc.) isn't what most people believe it is, because they are taught LIES from day one.


Constitutional arguments are a losing proposition because FDR ABOLISHED the Constitution (1787) and replaced it with the fascist welfare/warfare police state Constitution of 1935.

----------


## devil21

> Constitutional arguments are a losing proposition because FDR ABOLISHED the Constitution (1787) and replaced it with the fascist welfare/warfare police state Constitution of 1935.


My research indicates that it was prior to that, with the Organic Act of 1871 that created the corporate District of Columbia.

Take a look at this timeline if you haven't before.  The contents line up as well as any I've seen based on my own research.
http://www.teamlaw.org/HistoryOutline.htm




> The IRC includes alimony in gross income.  Since when did corporations begin receiving alimony?


smh

You can't truly be this obtuse.  How many times do I have to type it?  The CAPITAL LETTER NAME is the corporation.  The bank account is in the CAPITAL LETTER NAME.  Alimony is private banker credit (with user fee) deposited to a bank account of the CAPITAL LETTER NAME corporation.  Most humans unknowingly take responsibility for the CAPITAL LETTER NAME (using the benefits but also taking on the liabilities) and take responsibility for the taxes assessed to the CAPITAL LETTER NAME.  You (the living human) doesn't receive alimony.  The CAPITAL LETTER NAME corporation does.  I realize this is a difficult abstract concept to grasp for someone that isn't familiar but damn....

Here's something most people can relate to that should help to understand.  When a cop asks for your drivers license, he is asking you to present yourself as the representative of the capital letter name on the license.  That name is not _you_.  But by adding your picture and your signature voluntarily (you did apply for the license of your own free will) you are agreeing to be surety for the capital letter name corporation on the license.  This also applies to Social Security, which is also in the capital corporate name.  Get it yet?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I realize this is a difficult abstract concept to grasp for someone that isn't familiar but damn....


It's not so much difficult as it is vacuously inane, insipid, and downright stupid.

----------


## devil21

> It's not so much difficult as it is vacuously inane, insipid, and downright stupid.


Psst.  You're losing.

----------


## Jamesiv1

*Is tax protesting a cult?*Tax protesting certainly seems to have many of the characteristics of a religious cult.
For example, a religious cult usually has at least some of the following characteristics:

Cults claim a monopoly on truth (or salvation). So, for example, members of a cult will believe that only their members are saved, or will go to heaven, and that everyone on earth is damned. Similarly, tax protesters believe that only they know the truth about the federal income tax, and often believe that everyone who disagrees with them is not only ignorant, but a “slave,” “communist,” “statist” (meaing someone who worships government like a religion), or “sheeple” (meaning a sheep-like person).Cult members are typically isolated from the rest of society, either at the urging of the cult leader (who want to control the thinking of the cult members) or because the cult members themselves feel hostile or alienated from society. Similarly, promoters of tax protester schemes typically tell their followers not to talk to lawyers and accountants, and tax protesters themselves often withdraw from family and friends as they become obsessed with their tax battles.Cult members may suffer from “cognitive dissonance” as they find their beliefs leading them further and further from reality. So, for example, a group that believes that the world will end (or space aliens will come to rescue them from earth) on a particular day will not change their beliefs when the expected event does not occur, but will create new beliefs (and new expectations), consist with the old beliefs, in order to explain the dissonance between what they believe should have happened and what actually happened. Similarly, tax protester who believe that they are correct will not change their beliefs when they lose in court and are convicted, sanctioned, and enjoined, but will simply make up a new theory about why the courts are wrong or corrupt.Cult members frequently engage in self-destructive behavior, giving up fiends, family, spouses, money, and even their lives in order to comply with the demands of their cult. For example, the followers of Jim Jones, at “Jonestown” in Guyana, committed mass suicide (and mass murder) at his urgings. Similarly, tax protesters who have “drunk the kool-aid” will continue to follow tax protester nonsense even as it leads them to financial ruin and prison.
However, there are significant differences between religious cults and tax protesting. Most religious cults are founded by charismatic leaders, while the “gurus” of the tax protesting cult are typically as charismatic as a damp dish rag. Most religious cults also impose a very strict standard of thought and conduct, forcing cult members to conform to various aspects of conduct, dress, speech, and thought. However, most tax protesters are inherently anarchistic and have a large number of different—and conflicting—beliefs about exactly why the federal income tax is unconstitutional or inapplicable. Tax protesters are therefore rarely able to form any kind of a cohesive group large enough to call a “cult.”

----------


## devil21

You forgot the link.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/...esting-a-cult/

----------


## Jamesiv1

> You forgot the link.
> 
> http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/...esting-a-cult/


Why don't you do some research before you embarrass yourself again..?

----------


## erowe1

> Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
> 
> 1.  The 16th was indeed ratified.  But the 16th wasn't necessary to tax wages, since the Supreme Court upheld the Civil War income tax in 1880 based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.  The only reason the 16th was adopted was to overturn an 1895 case in which the Court held that a tax on investment income (but not wages) was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.
> 
> 2.  The argument that wages aren't income is one of the most brain-dead claims out there.  It has been consistently rejected by the courts, and people who continue to raise it are often fined by the court for wasting their time with such frivolous arguments.
> 
> 3.  Guess again.  The $4,000 exemption for a married couple under the 1913 tax act (long since repealed) equates to $96,671 in today's dollars.  But the Constitution doesn't mandate any particular exemption amount.


How many cases of people successfully getting out of paying income taxes by using these arguments in court can you find?

----------


## erowe1

> Psst.  You're losing.


How do you figure?

Way back in this thread you claimed there were bunches of cases of people getting out of paying income taxes by using your guru's arguments, and so far you haven't come up with a single one, while at the same time it's been shown that that guru himself along with a number of his followers have been imprisoned for not paying taxes.

Have you found any of those cases you alluded to yet?

----------


## devil21

> Why don't you do some research before you embarrass yourself again..?


You posted it, not me.  Next time post a link if you're posting someone else's writing.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> You posted it, not me.  Next time post a link if you're posting someone else's writing.


That's very collectivist of you.

You sir, are no lover of liberty.

----------


## devil21

> That's very collectivist of you.
> 
> You sir, are no lover of liberty.


Says the guy copying and pasting other people's writings as if they are his own.  Never mind that the text you posted comes from a tax lawyer's website.  I'm shocked that someone that swore a BAR oath to uphold the bankruptcy proceedings of the "United States" (Inc.) on behalf of the Crown bankers writes articles calling tax protestors crazy and cultish.  


Btw, your avatar of a Roman statue of an ancient god that is housed in London is quite telling....you wouldn't happen to be an occultist lawyer, would ya?

Mithra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra



> *As the Divinity of Contract*, Mithra is undeceivable, infallible, eternally watchful, and never-resting. Mithra is additionally the protector of *cattle* (d21: cattle=tax slaves), and his stock epithet is "of Wide Pastures." He is Guardian of the waters (d21:admiralty law, law of commerce) and ensures that those pastures receive enough of it.
> 
> Thus, etymologically mitra/miθra means "that which causes binding" (d21: bondage), preserved in the Avestan word for "Covenant, Contract, Oath"


Gee, contracts and bondage.  What a surprise!

The Roman cult of Mithras
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mi....php?page=main

----------


## Weston White

> *Is tax protesting a cult?*Tax protesting certainly seems to have many of the characteristics of a religious cult.
> For example, a religious cult usually has at least some of the following characteristics:
> 
> Cults claim a monopoly on truth (or salvation). So, for example, members of a cult will believe that only their members are saved, or will go to heaven, and that everyone on earth is damned. Similarly, tax protesters believe that only they know the truth about the federal income tax, and often believe that everyone who disagrees with them is not only ignorant, but a “slave,” “communist,” “statist” (meaing someone who worships government like a religion), or “sheeple” (meaning a sheep-like person).Cult members are typically isolated from the rest of society, either at the urging of the cult leader (who want to control the thinking of the cult members) or because the cult members themselves feel hostile or alienated from society. Similarly, promoters of tax protester schemes typically tell their followers not to talk to lawyers and accountants, and tax protesters themselves often withdraw from family and friends as they become obsessed with their tax battles.Cult members may suffer from “cognitive dissonance” as they find their beliefs leading them further and further from reality. So, for example, a group that believes that the world will end (or space aliens will come to rescue them from earth) on a particular day will not change their beliefs when the expected event does not occur, but will create new beliefs (and new expectations), consist with the old beliefs, in order to explain the dissonance between what they believe should have happened and what actually happened. Similarly, tax protester who believe that they are correct will not change their beliefs when they lose in court and are convicted, sanctioned, and enjoined, but will simply make up a new theory about why the courts are wrong or corrupt.Cult members frequently engage in self-destructive behavior, giving up fiends, family, spouses, money, and even their lives in order to comply with the demands of their cult. For example, the followers of Jim Jones, at “Jonestown” in Guyana, committed mass suicide (and mass murder) at his urgings. Similarly, tax protesters who have “drunk the kool-aid” will continue to follow tax protester nonsense even as it leads them to financial ruin and prison.
> However, there are significant differences between religious cults and tax protesting. Most religious cults are founded by charismatic leaders, while the “gurus” of the tax protesting cult are typically as charismatic as a damp dish rag. Most religious cults also impose a very strict standard of thought and conduct, forcing cult members to conform to various aspects of conduct, dress, speech, and thought. However, most tax protesters are inherently anarchistic and have a large number of different—and conflicting—beliefs about exactly why the federal income tax is unconstitutional or inapplicable. Tax protesters are therefore rarely able to form any kind of a cohesive group large enough to call a “cult.”


What an utterly ignorant, insultingly tawdry article.  Not sure your point of posting other than that you agree to the points of it--which casts you into the realm of being a jackass.

----------


## Weston White

> Could it be that you didn't read the first sentence of the statute?  What part of "*any person*" did you not understand?


Notice: *If* any person *liable to pay* any tax; thus by your liberal meaning, any tax, actually means EVERY tax, wherever.




> SCOTUS has explained the statute's reference to federal employees:


There are three key aspects considered by this Statute (1) levy on property or rights to such property, (2) liens for future payments of, and (3) notices of levy uponnot the incomes, but the salaries or wages offederal employees of every classification.  And we know that Congress cannot abscond from it Constitutional (5th Amend.) requirements thereby as to any person in the positive and no person in the negative: No person shall  be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It cannot be made any more clearer: Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a *notice of levy* on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.




> Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
> 
> 1.  The 16th was indeed ratified.  But the 16th wasn't necessary to tax wages, since the Supreme Court upheld the Civil War income tax in 1880 based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.  The only reason the 16th was adopted was to overturn an 1895 case in which the Court held that a tax on investment income (but not wages) was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.
> 
> 2.  The argument that wages aren't income is one of the most brain-dead claims out there.  It has been consistently rejected by the courts, and people who continue to raise it are often fined by the court for wasting their time with such frivolous arguments.
> 
> 3.  Guess again.  The $4,000 exemption for a married couple under the 1913 tax act (long since repealed) equates to $96,671 in today's dollars.  But the Constitution doesn't mandate any particular exemption amount.


Eh, no, no, and no.  Err...Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1.  The 16th Amend. was not necessary to taxes wages only if the tax is so apportioned; however, to tax income by another method it must have derived from wages--as a financial source. The tax is not upon mere compensation, recompense, renumeration, labor, livelihoods, or competency, but upon wealth acquired beyond all such provisions.

2.  It is not mere income in its general sense that is the context of the income tax, but income that is uniformly taxable under our U.S. Constitution--'constitutional income' is the term referenced throughout Congressional Records.

3.  In any case, it is clear that it was the original intent and purpose of the 16th Amend. and its income tax to NOT tax the common wages of day-labors, only real wealth, and only to support the temporary war efforts of the time, rather than depending solely on tariffs.

----------


## Weston White

> Prove it.  Prove that anyone has successfully avoided the income tax by using any of the crackpot tax protester arguments.  Or are you one of those paranoid types who believes the absence of any such reported cases proves that there's a massive conspiracy to hide them?


There is no conspiracy to hide them, only to prevent them from being used as precedent (star decisis) in memorandums.  The proof you seek is in the simple fact that USSC has refused certiorari (review) on every income tax case involving an individual arguing that their livelihoods and core renumeration is not taxable by the federal government without apportionment.  The proof is staring you right in your pudgy, greasy face.





> The fact that Section 6151 says that if someone has to file a return he SHALL PAY the tax and the fact that there are civil and criminal penalties for failing to do so would convince anyone of minimal intelligence that there is a liability.


Negative, that does not help you any: "*when* a return of tax *is required* under this title or regulations, *the person required to* make such return shall", as we are still stuck here at step-one.

----------


## Weston White

> P.S. If I'm wrong then show me the 100's of "patriots" who have gone to court and won... Oh, ok, show me 10 who have won... 5???


You know this is very similar to what law enforcement agencies commonly do to those they have instituted a clear cut case of excessive force upon, they will doctor their police report with lies, charge the individual with a variety of misdemeanor and felony charges, arrest and book them into jail, and then the DA will actually prosecute them--even when there is video supportive to the defendant, while pushing hard for a plea bargain or else know at least one or two of the charges will stick and in either instance shelter the municipality from what would have otherwise been a large payday civil suit.  Ultimately, it is not about justice or necessary revenue generation, it's about maintaining the public's perception and presumptive authority of government.

----------


## erowe1

> The proof you seek is in the simple fact that USSC has refused certiorari (review) on every income tax case involving an individual arguing that their livelihoods and core renumeration is not taxable by the federal government without apportionment.


Source?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> There is no conspiracy to hide them, only to prevent them from being used as precedent (star decisis) in memorandums.  The proof you seek is in the simple fact that USSC has refused certiorari (review) on every income tax case involving an individual arguing that their livelihoods and core renumeration is not taxable by the federal government without apportionment.  The proof is staring you right in your pudgy, greasy face.


Yes, you are indeed one of those paranoid types who assumes such cases exist without any proof whatsoever.  The reasons that SCOTUS declines to review such cases are twofold: (a) most tax protesters don't appeal to SCOTUS, and (b) the law is crystal clear that the protesters' arguments are frivolous, and the Court doesn't want to waste its limited time to explain once again to idiots who can't read the plain language of the 16th Amendment that a tax on personal earnings needn't be apportioned.




> Negative, that does not help you any: "*when* a return of tax *is required* under this title or regulations, *the person required to* make such return shall", as we are still stuck here at step-one.


You're only stuck there because you didn't read Section 6012, which says that anyone having gross income above a certain amount must file a return.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> What an utterly ignorant, insultingly tawdry article.  Not sure your point of posting other than that you agree to the points of it--which casts you into the realm of being a jackass.


You sir, are no lover of liberty.

----------


## erowe1

Gary North has written about these tax gurus from time to time over the years. I've always found his position pretty compelling. Here's one of his articles that was published on LRC.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/...to-go-to-jail/

He got a personal reply from one of the tax gurus after that (it looks like it's probably the same Cracking the Code guy we've talked about here), and wrote this post in response.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/14126.cfm

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> You know this is very similar to what law enforcement agencies commonly do to those they have instituted a clear cut case of excessive force upon, they will doctor their police report with lies, charge the individual with a variety of misdemeanor and felony charges, arrest and book them into jail, and then the DA will actually prosecute them--even when there is video supportive to the defendant, while pushing hard for a plea bargain or else know at least one or two of the charges will stick and in either instance shelter the municipality from what would have otherwise been a large payday civil suit.  Ultimately, it is not about justice or necessary revenue generation, it's about maintaining the public's perception and presumptive authority of government.


Right, So you admit that the "law" does not matter since the "goons" will use every dishonest trick and outright falsehood to make sure that the "truth" is never heard.  It's a "federal mafia" and you will never get your ruling that the income tax is theft (even though we all know it is)...

----------


## erowe1

There are two kinds of law: the real kind and the made-up kind.

The real law is God's law of absolute morality.  Nobody gets to vote on it. It isn't a matter of opinion. There's no place for discussion of what "ought" to be a law of this kind, because this law is the law of that oughtness itself. According to this law, taxation is theft. And there's no need for scouring written codes and court cases to figure this out. Any such codes or court cases that affirm this are merely redundant, and any that contradict it are wrong.

Then there's the made-up law, the one the state imposes on us. This law involves groups voting on what should be a law, and writing these things down, and courts interpreting what they write, and people with guns enforcing them, and so on and so forth. And I'm sure that there is some measure of concern on the parts of those courts for what the words on the paper say, even if it's only a token measure. But at the end of the day, this law is whatever the state actually enforces. There's no point in tax gurus convincing their followers that the state's made-up law actually says they don't have to file and pay income taxes, when in fact, the way the law actually gets enforced by the state is such that those who follow the tax gurus' advice end up in prison.

We can, and should, recognize that the income tax is illegal according to the real law, the one that comes from the Creator. But we shouldn't lie to people and tell them that the state agrees with God about that.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The real law is God's law of absolute morality.  Nobody gets to vote on it. It isn't a matter of opinion. There's no place for discussion of what "ought" to be a law of this kind, because this law is the law of that oughtness itself. According to this law, taxation is theft. And there's no need for scouring written codes and court cases to figure this out.


Hmm...




> Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes..   Romans 13:7

----------


## erowe1

> Hmm...


Notice that it nowhere says to give to anyone what you don't owe them.

The state doesn't get to decide that we owe them just by passing a law that says so any more than you or I can do that to one another.

----------


## devil21

> You sir, are no lover of liberty.


I could ask what you think is liberty loving about bondage, secret contracts and hidden agendas but this thread would take a really strange turn if we go down that road.




> Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes.. Romans 13:7


Written by some dude.

----------


## erowe1

> Written by some dude.


Aren't all the statutes you keep citing just written by some group of dudes?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Notice that it nowhere says to give to anyone what you don't owe them.
> 
> The state doesn't get to decide that we owe them just by passing a law that says so any more than you or I can do that to one another.


My puzzlement dealt with how that passage is consistent with the notion that taxation is theft under God's law.  If taxation were always theft under any conceivable circumstances it would have been pointless for Paul to use taxation as an example of when it would be appropriate to obey the authorities.

----------


## devil21

nm, that's heading down that strange road.

----------


## erowe1

> My puzzlement dealt with how that passage is consistent with the notion that taxation is theft under God's law.  If taxation were always theft under any conceivable circumstances it would have been pointless for Paul to use taxation as an example of when it would be appropriate to obey the authorities.


It's not pointless. It's a practical matter, rather than a moral one. The reason is because the powers that be wield the sword, and not in vain. They will kill you if you don't do what they say, so, unless it's worth dying for, you should do what they say.

It's similar to the advice I would give someone concerning what to do when they get mugged by an individual or gang that has them outgunned.

From a Christian perspective there's more to it than that, because Jesus in his crucifixion has shown us that the way to victory over the enemy is through voluntary subjection to his violence. The Church is built on the blood of martyrs. But this point too doesn't take the powers that be off the hook. When they rob us, kidnap us, murder us, or do any other things that violate God's law, they're still wrong to do so, even if our faith compels us to submit to them. What Paul says in Romans 13 is along the same lines as Jesus telling his disciples that when a Roman soldier compels them to carry his gear for a mile, they should carry it two miles. This teaching is given with the understanding that what that soldier is doing on behalf of the Emperor (a pretender to the throne that rightfully belongs to Christ alone) is evil.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> It's not pointless. It's a practical matter, rather than a moral one. The reason is because the powers that be wield the sword, and not in vain. They will kill you if you don't do what they say, so, unless it's worth dying for, you should do what they say.


Except Paul doesn't put it that way regarding taxes.  In verse 6 he says, "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants..."  It is a strange theology that would label as evil something done by God's servants.  But enough of debating religion; I fear there is no common ground so that nothing will ever be resolved.

----------


## devil21

> Except Paul doesn't put it that way regarding taxes.  In verse 6 he says, "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants..."  It is a strange theology that would label as evil something done by God's servants.  But enough of debating religion; I fear there is no common ground so that nothing will ever be resolved.


Self proclaimed as God's servants.  If Lloyd Blankfein is a measure of a servant of God (he's doing God's work, dontcha know) then excuse me for not putting much faith into what those that claim to be servants of God are up to.  Never mind that your God may not be someone else's God.  God is internal to each human.  Following someone else's vision of God means you're a sheep.

----------


## erowe1

> It is a strange theology that would label as evil something done by God's servants.


I see nothing strange about that at all. Have you ever read the book of Job?

Calling the powers that be God's servants is similar to what Paul says earlier in Romans when he writes in chapter 8, "in all things God works for the good of those who love him." He surely means to include evil things in that. Also, in chapter 9 he provides the perfect illustration of a ruler being used by God as a servant precisely through his evil, namely Pharaoh of the Exodus: "For Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.'"

The Gospel itself, the very center of Paul's preaching, is about God accomplishing the greatest good that has ever been done through the greatest act of sin that has ever been committed, and that by the hands of the state. Pilate didn't mean to be God's servant, but he was.

----------


## erowe1

> Self proclaimed as God's servants.  If Lloyd Blankfein is a measure of a servant of God (he's doing God's work, dontcha know) then excuse me for not putting much faith into what those that claim to be servants of God are up to.  Never mind that your God may not be someone else's God.  God is internal to each human.  Following someone else's vision of God means you're a sheep.


But you're the one who keeps citing man-made statutes as if they are some source of legitimate authority.

----------


## devil21

> But you're the one who keeps citing man-made statutes as if they are some source of legitimate authority.


We still gotta live in this little fiefdom.  Nothing wrong with comprehending all of the angles and knowing where to penetrate.

Regarding the court cases you keep asking about, I will maintain that few have actually taken the proper steps and made the proper claims to truly become a "nontaxpayer".

----------


## Contumacious

> Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
> 
> 1.  The 16th was indeed ratified.  But the 16th wasn't necessary to tax wages, since the Supreme Court upheld the Civil War income tax in 1880 based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.  The only reason the 16th was adopted was to overturn an 1895 case in which the Court held that a tax on investment income (but not wages) was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.
> 
> 2.  The argument that wages aren't income is one of the most brain-dead claims out there.  It has been consistently rejected by the courts, and people who continue to raise it are often fined by the court for wasting their time with such frivolous arguments.
> 
> 3.  Guess again.  The $4,000 exemption for a married couple under the 1913 tax act (long since repealed) equates to $96,671 in today's dollars.  But the Constitution doesn't mandate any particular exemption amount.


*WRONG, WRONG, WRONG*

1- You have shown NO EVIDENCE that the 16 A was ratified. That the documentation submitted by the states was valid thereby contradicting Mr Benson's textbook.

2- Somehow the powers that be concluded that wages were taxable income pursuant to the Central Illinois Case

3- You have shown no evidence that the socialists (then known as progressives" intended to tax wages as opposed to soaking the rich - 17,000 in 1913 is now $304,000 .

Remember we are NOT in federal court so no BULLS H I T arguments

.

.

----------


## devil21

> *WRONG, WRONG, WRONG*
> 
> 1- You have shown NO EVIDENCE that the 16 A was ratified. That the documentation submitted by the states was valid thereby contradicting Mr Benson's textbook.


That's where the history outline link I posted previously helps in understanding what exactly happened.  The 16th wasn't ratified because it wasn't added to the original Constitution.  It was an amendment to the corporate US Constitution (aka addition of a corporation bylaw) and didn't require official ratification as the original Constitution required.  It's technically not a good argument to say the 16th isn't valid because it wasn't ratified......because it was never required for it to be ratified.  It's not the same Constitution as the Founders wrote!

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> [B][SIZE=7]1- You have shown NO EVIDENCE that the 16 A was ratified. That the documentation submitted by the states was valid thereby contradicting Mr Benson's textbook.


Benson?  The idiot whose crackpot arguments have been rejected by every court that has addressed them? Here's how one court disposed of this nonsense:




> Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.
> 
> Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.
> 
> Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
> 
> Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.” 
> U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).





> 2. Somehow the powers that be concluded that wages were taxable income pursuant to the Central Illinois Case


It's obvious you've never read this case, which didn't deal with whether wages were income (I bet you really intended to say that the case held that wages were not taxable income).  The Court framed the issue as follows:  "This case presents the issue whether an employer, who in 1963 reimbursed lunch expenses of employees who were on company travel but not away overnight, must withhold federal income tax on those reimbursements. Stated another way, the issue is whether the lunch reimbursements qualify as "wages" under 3401 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 3401 (a)."

In other words, the issue was whether these payments were wages for purposes of withholding, not whether the payments were included in income.  The Court noted that it had already decided that question in an earlier case, in which it held that similar payments were indeed includable in gross income:




> In Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977), decided earlier this Term, the Court held that New Jersey's cash reimbursements to its highway patrol officers for meals consumed while on patrol duty constituted income to the officers, within the broad definition of gross income under 61(a) of the 1954 Code, 26 U.S.C. 61(a), and, further, that those cash payments were not excludable under 119 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. 119, relating to meals or lodging furnished for the convenience of the employer. 
> 
> Kowalski, however, concerned the federal income tax and the issue of what was income. Its pertinency for the present withholding tax litigation is necessarily confined to the income tax aspects of the lunch reimbursements to the Company's employees. 
> 
> The income tax issue is not before us in this case. We are confronted here, instead, with the question whether the lunch reimbursements, even though now they may be held to constitute taxable income to the employees who are reimbursed, are or are not "wages" subject to withholding, within the meaning and requirements of 3401-3403 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. 3401-3403 (1970 ed. and Supp. V). These withholding statutes are in Subtitle C of the Code. The income tax provisions constitute Subtitle A." 
> 
> Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. U.S., 435 U.S. 21, 24-25 (1978)





> 3- You have shown no evidence that the socialists (then known as progressives" intended to tax wages as opposed to soaking the rich - 17,000 in 1913 is now $304,000.


You got it partially right (which proves the old saying that a blind hog rooting around under an oak tree is bound to come up with an acorn now and then).  The purpose of the 16th was indeed to tax the investment income of the rich and to overturn the 1895 Pollock decision that had struck down as unconstitutional an unapportioned tax on investment income.  But apportionment has never been required for a tax on personal earnings, and an argument to the contrary was rejected by the Court when it upheld the Civil War income tax in the Springer case.  See http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/102/586.html

But you're still way off base on what the 1913 exemption (which was $4,000, not $17,000) is worth today.  It's only $96,671.11.  See http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm




> Remember we are NOT in federal court so no BULLS H I T arguments


The only bull$#@! arguments are the ones you have posted, which are based on sheer ignorance and mindless emotion.  If you want to know what the law really is you need to read the Constitution, statutes, and court decisions, not crackpot websites or books written by scammers like Benson.  And learn how to use an inflation calculator.

----------


## Contumacious

> Benson?  The idiot whose crackpot arguments have been rejected by every court that has addressed them? Here's how one court disposed of this nonsense:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you've never read this case, which didn't deal with whether wages were income (I bet you really intended to say that the case held that wages were not taxable income).  The Court framed the issue as follows:  "This case presents the issue whether an employer, who in 1963 reimbursed lunch expenses of employees who were on company travel but not away overnight, must withhold federal income tax on those reimbursements. Stated another way, the issue is whether the lunch reimbursements qualify as "wages" under 3401 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 3401 (a)."
> 
> In other words, the issue was whether these payments were wages for purposes of withholding, not whether the payments were included in income.  The Court noted that it had already decided that question in an earlier case, in which it held that similar payments were indeed includable in gross income:
> ...


I thought I made it EMINENTLY clear that is is NOT federal court consequently there should be no bull$#@! arguments.

 Mr. Benson was a revenue officer with the Illinois Department of Revenue so WHY did he suddenly become a "crackpot".

 Federal judges have sworn to support and defend the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare state. Secondly, god knows what derogatory information the FBI has about those motherfuckers and is used to manipulate the sons of bitches opinions. Some of them issue opinions calculated to get them promoted to appellate positions. Others are elitists/government supremacists who want to mold the country into another  Third Reich. Justice Marshall used to PUBLICLY brag that he would not read the briefs from drug dealers and child molesters. So these stupid bastards allow social engineering to affect their judgments.

So now PROVE with your own RESEARCH that what I have stated is wrong as a matter og Historical  Facts and Law.

I Don't give a $#@! about how the "courts" have ruled .

.

----------


## Danke

FRIEND, ALL YOUR LIFE YOU’VE BEEN TOLD THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT was a transformational event in the history of the United States Constitution by which an unapportioned direct federal tax on "all that comes in" was authorized. You’ve been told that the amendment reversed the preceding 137-year-old Constitutional tax structure prohibiting such taxes-- under which the American people had grown to be the freest, most prosperous, and most optimistic people in the history of the world-- in favor of a radically-different structure under which the scandal-ridden and deeply-distrusted denizens of Washington, DC were granted carte blanche to reach directly into every wallet, be it that of a Wall Street tycoon or that of the average working stiff. 

Explanations as to why the rich and happy Americans of the early 20th Century would do such a thing to themselves have always been vague-- they typically amount to something about a populist or progressive impulse that swept the country in favor of sticking it to the “Robber Barons”. Missing is any reason why such an impulse would embrace a universal tax reaching not just the robber barons, but their alleged victims in the working class, as well (along with every little shopkeeper, every mid-level success-story working out the American dream, and everyone else, too).

Also missing from these stories is any explanation of why the several states would ratify such a tax, under which they would inevitably lose power and significance in favor of their federal competitor. Further, these stories leave out the fact that there already WAS an income tax on the books and still in force at the time of the 16th Amendment, which had been successfully deployed over the preceding 52 years without Constitutional problem, save for a single instance in which the US Supreme Court had taken issue with its application to merely two single varieties of realized income.

These stories don’t mention that, in fact, huge portions of our modern body of income tax law pre-date the 16th Amendment, even though this is plainly stated in the preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, and even though Congress publishes a comprehensive derivation table explicitly identifying the pre-16th-origins of these still-current statutes. (See a little video presentation on this subject here.)

The fact is, an awful lot is left out of these stories purporting to explain the seemingly inexplicable decision of the prosperous American people of the early 20th Century to chuck a system that had served them so well for so long-- because they’re just stories. They’re fiction, so they don’t have to make sense. Those telling these stories want you to believe otherwise for reasons of their own, but the truth is, the 16th Amendment did nothing these story-tellers want you to imagine it did. Instead, the amendment merely overruled a Supreme Court decision that had briefly interrupted the application of the already-long-standing tax (the twice-heard case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429, and 158 U.S. 601, (both 1895)), while making no changes to its pre-amendment nature.

The Income Tax Was Established As An Excise On Privilege: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm


Was grandpa really a moron? http://www.losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf

----------


## Contumacious

> FRIEND, ALL YOUR LIFE YOUVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT was a transformational event in the history of the United States Constitution by which an unapportioned direct federal tax on "all that comes in" was authorized. Youve been told that the amendment reversed the preceding 137-year-old Constitutional tax structure prohibiting such taxes-- under which the American people had grown to be the freest, most prosperous, and most optimistic people in the history of the world-- in favor of a radically-different structure under which the scandal-ridden and deeply-distrusted denizens of Washington, DC were granted carte blanche to reach directly into every wallet, be it that of a Wall Street tycoon or that of the average working stiff. 
> 
> Explanations as to why the rich and happy Americans of the early 20th Century would do such a thing to themselves have always been vague-- they typically amount to something about a populist or progressive impulse that swept the country in favor of sticking it to the Robber Barons. Missing is any reason why such an impulse would embrace a universal tax reaching not just the robber barons, but their alleged victims in the working class, as well (along with every little shopkeeper, every mid-level success-story working out the American dream, and everyone else, too).
> 
> Also missing from these stories is any explanation of why the several states would ratify such a tax, under which they would inevitably lose power and significance in favor of their federal competitor. Further, these stories leave out the fact that there already WAS an income tax on the books and still in force at the time of the 16th Amendment, which had been successfully deployed over the preceding 52 years without Constitutional problem, save for a single instance in which the US Supreme Court had taken issue with its application to merely two single varieties of realized income.
> 
> These stories dont mention that, in fact, huge portions of our modern body of income tax law pre-date the 16th Amendment, even though this is plainly stated in the preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, and even though Congress publishes a comprehensive derivation table explicitly identifying the pre-16th-origins of these still-current statutes. (See a little video presentation on this subject here.)
> 
> The fact is, an awful lot is left out of these stories purporting to explain the seemingly inexplicable decision of the prosperous American people of the early 20th Century to chuck a system that had served them so well for so long-- because theyre just stories. Theyre fiction, so they dont have to make sense. Those telling these stories want you to believe otherwise for reasons of their own, but the truth is, the 16th Amendment did nothing these story-tellers want you to imagine it did. Instead, the amendment merely overruled a Supreme Court decision that had briefly interrupted the application of the already-long-standing tax (the twice-heard case of Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429, and 158 U.S. 601, (both 1895)), while making no changes to its pre-amendment nature.
> ...


Danke schoen.

Excellent question:




> Explanations as to why the rich and happy Americans of the early 20th Century would do such a thing to themselves have always been vague-- they typically amount to something about a populist or progressive impulse that swept the country in favor of sticking it to the Robber Barons. Missing is any reason why such an impulse would embrace a universal tax reaching not just the robber barons, but their alleged victims in the working class, as well (along with every little shopkeeper, every mid-level success-story working out the American dream, and everyone else, too)


Excellent question




> Also missing from these stories is any explanation of why the several states would ratify such a tax, under which they would inevitably lose power and significance in favor of their federal competitor. Further, these stories leave out the fact that there already WAS an income tax on the books and still in force at the time of the 16th Amendment, which had been successfully deployed over the preceding 52 years without Constitutional problem, save for a single instance in which the US Supreme Court had taken issue with its application to merely two single varieties of realized income.


Those are excellent points. 

If you were to raise them in federal "court" you would have been subjected to a $500 penalty for raising a "frivolous" (wink, wink" politically incorrect arguments) 18 Months at a federal prison for being  in contempt of court, and would have been criticized for being a "crackpot" by our resident legal critic.

.

----------


## TheTexan

"Tax withholding" is such an ugly way to put it.

I prefer "automated freedom donations"

----------


## Contumacious

> "Tax withholding" is such an ugly way to put it.
> 
> I prefer "automated freedom donations"


Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

So MANDATED tax withholdings to support the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state are  "automated freedom donations".

Parasite much?

----------


## Danke

> Danke schoen.
> 
> Excellent question:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question
> 
> 
> ...


Sonny's boys have raised it up.  It is now $5000, to question the rulers.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Sonny's boys have raised it up.  It is now $5000, to question the rulers.


You can question the rulers all you want, but if you raise the same stupid arguments that have been consistently rejected as frivolous time after time WITHOUT EXCEPTION (e.g., wages aren't income; Congress can tax only in D.C. and other federal areas; only foreign income is taxable; only income from a federal privilege is taxable), you will get off with a warning the first time, but if you continue to waste the courts' time with such drivel you run the risk of being fined.

Interestingly, I have no issue with what you posted about the 16th Amendment.  But then you spoiled everything by claiming the income tax is a privilege tax, which is demonstrably false -- e.g., income from illegal activities is taxable; when did Congress begin granting privileges to engage in criminal activity?

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

And none of this matters because they are "THE FEDERAL MAFIA"... They will jail or kill you if you don't pay the extortion money.  Goons will be goons and we need to recognize them for what they are - LAWLESS GOONS!!  They don't care whether the 16th am was ratified or whether you are properly defined as a "taxpayer".  They will steal your money and if you think otherwise, try not paying for any length of time (I suggest 10 years) and see for yourself...

----------


## Contumacious

> You can question the rulers all you want, but if you raise the same stupid arguments that have been consistently rejected as frivolous time after time WITHOUT EXCEPTION (e.g., wages aren't income; Congress can tax only in D.C. and other federal areas; only foreign income is taxable; only income from a federal privilege is taxable), you will get off with a warning the first time, but if you continue to waste the courts' time with such drivel you run the risk of being fined.
> 
> Interestingly, I have no issue with what you posted about the 16th Amendment.  But then you spoiled everything by claiming the income tax is a privilege tax, which is demonstrably false -- e.g., income from illegal activities is taxable; when did Congress begin granting privileges to engage in criminal activity?


*BULL S H I T*


Bill Benson presented CERTIFIED NOTARIZED documentation that the 16A was NEVER RATIFIED. He was given all kinds of pretexts for not admitting the documentation , from "you are raising a "political" question which they could not address to the whole gamut. If the US attorney labels you as a "tax protestor" either in the pleadings or exparte, then the litigant has no rights the federal "judiciary" has to recognize.


.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Bill Benson presented CERTIFIED NOTARIZED documentation that the 16A was NEVER RATIFIED.


No, he presented stuff that he claimed demonstrated that the 16th wasn't ratified, but the courts disagreed.

You realize, don't you, that even without the 16th Congress has the power to levy an unapportioned tax on wages?

----------


## erowe1

> *BULL S H I T*
> 
> 
> Bill Benson presented CERTIFIED NOTARIZED documentation that the 16A was NEVER RATIFIED. He was given all kinds of pretexts for not admitting the documentation , from "you are raising a "political" question which they could not address to the whole gamut. If the US attorney labels you as a "tax protestor" either in the pleadings or exparte, then the litigant has no rights the federal "judiciary" has to recognize.
> 
> 
> .


And how well has this line of argument worked in court?

----------


## kfarnan

> No, he presented stuff that he claimed demonstrated that the 16th wasn't ratified, but the courts disagreed.
> 
> You realize, don't you, that even without the 16th Congress has the power to levy an unapportioned tax on wages?


In the United States, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. After the 1895 _Pollock_ ruling (essentially, that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes).

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Article I, Section 2, Clause 3[/URL][COLOR=#252525][FONT=sans-serif] of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population.


Yes, but a tax on wages isn't a direct tax.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> And none of this matters because they are "THE FEDERAL MAFIA"... They will jail or kill you if you don't pay the extortion money.  Goons will be goons and we need to recognize them for what they are - LAWLESS GOONS!!  They don't care whether the 16th am was ratified or whether you are properly defined as a "taxpayer".  They will steal your money and if you think otherwise, try not paying for any length of time (I suggest 10 years) and see for yourself...


Wow... It seems I'm on "ignore" here.  No one wants to comment on what I have to say...

----------


## Danke

> Wow... It seems I'm on "ignore" here.  No one wants to comment on what I have to say...


I don't think anyone is ignoring you here. We all understand that we have a lawless government and a bunch of thugs supported by lawyers and CPAs like Sonny that derive their income from extortion by the barrel of a gun and they will try to justify what they do just like any of the three alphabet organizations.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Yes, but a tax on wages isn't a direct tax.


Income taxes are considered a "direct tax".  http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...irect-tax.html




> A government levy on the income, property, or wealth of people or companies. A direct tax is borne entirely by the entity that pays it, and cannot be passed on to another entity.
> 
> Examples include corporation tax, income tax, and social security contributions. Unlike consumption taxes (see indirect tax), direct taxes are based on the ability to pay principle but they sometimes work as a disincentive to work harder and earn more because that would mean paying more tax. See also progressive tax.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Income taxes are considered a "direct tax".  http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...irect-tax.html


Semantics. Would you care much about the explanation a robber has for you when they take your property ?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Income taxes are considered a "direct tax".  http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...irect-tax.html


Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Supreme Court, not businessdirectory.com, gets to determine the meaning of "direct taxes" as used in the Constitution, and it says that "direct taxes" are only capitations, property taxes, and (if you think the Pollock case would be decided the same way today) taxes on investment income.  All else, including a tax on wages, are indirect taxes that needn't be apportioned.

The argument that a tax on personal earnings is a direct tax was considered and rejected in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), where the Court held that the Civil War income tax was in the nature of a duty or excise.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I don't think anyone is ignoring you here. We all understand that we have a lawless government and a bunch of thugs supported by lawyers and CPAs like Sonny that derive their income from extortion by the barrel of a gun and they will try to justify what they do just like any of the three alphabet organizations.


It's understandable that someone who has fallen for Peter Hendrickson's scam would think that the income tax system is lawless, but I assure you that it is not.  It may very well be bad policy, but to claim that it isn't based on the law simply displays ignorance.

----------


## Danke

> It's understandable that someone who has fallen for Peter Hendrickson's scam would think that the income tax system is lawless, but I assure you that it is not.  It may very well be bad policy, but to claim that it isn't based on the law simply displays ignorance.


 Actually Pete thinks it's still a lawful  system. And it should be. But I understand that our courts are corrupt (and have a vested interest in that ignorance ) and it seems something Pete does not want to acknowledge, this fact. He still has a belief in the system as being ultimately just. I don't share his fantasies.  Most here do not ( just look at the police abuse threads) unless they are profiting from the system like you.

The Supreme Court has even ackknowledge they don't want to hear about the "law" in recent court   cases because collecting taxes (unjustly) is too important to the function of government.

----------


## Danke

> Income taxes are considered a "direct tax".  http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...irect-tax.html


Wow, two statist arguing. Sonny boy is right on this one,it is an indirect tax.  And indirect tax is a tax on a privilege. Read my signature. All of it.

----------


## Danke

> It's understandable that someone who has fallen for Peter Hendrickson's scam..


Interesting that you use the word "scam"


If he was a perpetrator of a scam, then there would be some  financial benefit for him.

 He and his wife have served jail time for their beliefs. Are you saying selling a few books is a financial benefit for him and his family to suffer that hardship?

 No he did a lot of research and came to the conclusion that he has.  Government  prosecutors have tried to get his book banned. But they could not find any information in it that was wrong to do it.


 A man who is sacrificed everything to bring knowledge to all of us. 

 Just like Ron Paul, who wanted to eliminate the criminal IRS.

You can disagree and debate specific points that he is brought up in his research. But it is not a scam.  The real scam is people like you are perpetuating your profession to collect taxes that are unjust and unlawful.  Similar to what politicians are doing.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> And indirect tax is a tax on a privilege. Read my signature. All of it.


Your signature is hopelessly wrong and misleading.  I've already pointed out that income from illegal activities is taxable, yet you and the other Hendrickson lemmings have yet to show what privilege is involved in such cases.  You have also failed to produce a single case in which someone has avoided taxation because his income was earned in private, non-privileged activity.  This isn't surprising, since there aren't any.  In fact, everyone who has made this lame argument in court has lost.  And it's not because "the courts are corrupt" -- that is the last pathetic excuse tax protesters like you come up with when all of their crackpot legal arguments have been rejected for the intellectual swill that they are.  No, they are rejected because they are wrong as a matter of law.

A statist is one who believes that everything the State does is OK.  I do not.  Your use of the term to smear anyone who dares expose the idiotic misrepresentations of the law peddled by Hendrickson, Schiff, and other charlatans simply demonstrates that you can't defend your position on legal grounds.

Incidentally, I've also pointed out that your reference to Federalist 15 has nothing to do with current law.  The quote was a criticism of the taxing system under the Articles of Confederation, which was an utter failure.

----------


## erowe1

> It's understandable that someone who has fallen for Peter Hendrickson's scam would think that the income tax system is lawless, but I assure you that it is not.  It may very well be bad policy, but to claim that it isn't based on the law simply displays ignorance.


The kind of laws it's based on are the kind that people just make up.

But I agree that it's ridiculously foolish to argue against the federal government that its own made up laws don't allow it to make us file and pay income taxes out of our wages when its courts say that its laws do allow that.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

TAXATION IS THEFT!!!  (yes, I'm shouting...)

----------


## kfarnan

> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Supreme Court, not businessdirectory.com, gets to determine the meaning of "direct taxes" as used in the Constitution, and it says that "direct taxes" are only capitations, property taxes, and (if you think the Pollock case would be decided the same way today) taxes on investment income.  All else, including a tax on wages, are indirect taxes that needn't be apportioned.
> 
> The argument that a tax on personal earnings is a direct tax was considered and rejected in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), where the Court held that the Civil War income tax was in the nature of a duty or excise.


You can't superimpose a law that expired indefinitely into the future.  It was a temporary act, meant to expire, not an amendment.  Why did they need the 16th, if they already decided in 1881?
Enjoy the slavery.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Why did they need the 16th, if they already decided in 1881?


The 16th was needed because the Supreme Court ruled in 1895 that a tax on investment income was a direct tax that had to be apportioned in order to be constitutional.  But the Court went out of its way to limit its holding to taxes on investment income and in dicta recognized the validity of an unapportioned tax on wages.

----------


## devil21

My extensive research on this topic leads me to conclude that the only way to truly and lawfully avoid personal income tax is to cease being a "federal employee" in any way.  That means canceling your birth certificate, rescinding social security membership and no longer using the banker's private credit.  If any of those are still in effect then one is still a "taxpayer".  The next step is to incorporate a new corporate entity (instead of the current corporate entity you live under, called the ALL CAPITAL NAME, which dies once the BC and SS are canceled) and live under the new corporate entity.  Then, you can take advantage of all of the loopholes that GE, et al, take advantage of to not pay any corporate taxes.  In essence, remove your body from a position as surety for the corporation that THEY created (which makes you a federal employee) and instead become surety for the one YOU create.  Or, instead of creating a new "corporation" that you control, you could just go plain sovereign and not engage in any of it and just live off the land, barter goods and any FRNs you come across use as barter instead of as "money".  

The whole system is based on consenting so stop consenting by using their creations.  That's obviously the Cliff Notes version but that's the big picture.

(why was this thread moved?  too much truth for too many eyes?  it's not a constitutional issue since the constitution doesn't exist as law any more.)

----------


## kfarnan

> My extensive research on this topic leads me to conclude that the only way to truly and lawfully avoid personal income tax is to cease being a "federal employee" in any way.  That means canceling your birth certificate, rescinding social security membership and no longer using the banker's private credit.  If any of those are still in effect then one is still a "taxpayer".  The next step is to incorporate a new corporate entity (instead of the current corporate entity you live under, called the ALL CAPITAL NAME, which dies once the BC and SS are canceled) and live under the new corporate entity.  Then, you can take advantage of all of the loopholes that GE, et al, take advantage of to not pay any corporate taxes.  In essence, remove your body from a position as surety for the corporation that THEY created (which makes you a federal employee) and instead become surety for the one YOU create.  Or, instead of creating a new "corporation" that you control, you could just go plain sovereign and not engage in any of it and just live off the land, barter goods and any FRNs you come across use as barter instead of as "money".  
> 
> The whole system is based on consenting so stop consenting by using their creations.  That's obviously the Cliff Notes version but that's the big picture.
> 
> (why was this thread moved?  too much truth for too many eyes?  it's not a constitutional issue since the constitution doesn't exist as law any more.)


Avoid their game altogether.  They don't play fair.  The only way to win is to not engage them.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> My extensive research on this topic leads me to conclude that the only way to truly and lawfully avoid personal income tax is to cease being a "federal employee" in any way.  That means canceling your birth certificate, rescinding social security membership and no longer using the banker's private credit.  If any of those are still in effect then one is still a "taxpayer".  The next step is to incorporate a new corporate entity (instead of the current corporate entity you live under, called the ALL CAPITAL NAME, which dies once the BC and SS are canceled) and live under the new corporate entity.  Then, you can take advantage of all of the loopholes that GE, et al, take advantage of to not pay any corporate taxes.  In essence, remove your body from a position as surety for the corporation that THEY created (which makes you a federal employee) and instead become surety for the one YOU create.  Or, instead of creating a new "corporation" that you control, you could just go plain sovereign and not engage in any of it and just live off the land, barter goods and any FRNs you come across use as barter instead of as "money".  
> 
> The whole system is based on consenting so stop consenting by using their creations.  That's obviously the Cliff Notes version but that's the big picture.
> 
> (why was this thread moved?  too much truth for too many eyes?  it's not a constitutional issue since the constitution doesn't exist as law any more.)


Can't exactly give up your birth certificate but you could surrender your citizenship.  You must leave the country first and make the application in a US Embassy abroad.  Also to note they say it does not remove the possibility of owing taxes to the US Government. They still expect their cut.  https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...tizenship.html




> E.* TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION*
> 
> Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship* may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations* (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.


Or you could just go underground- only work for cash and live like an illegal immigrant.

----------


## devil21

> Can't exactly give up your birth certificate but you could surrender your citizenship.  You must leave the country first and make the application in a US Embassy abroad.  Also to note they say it does not remove the possibility of owing taxes to the US Government. They still expect their cut.  https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...tizenship.html


(not that I'd take any advice from Zippy without using extreme diligence....but just for giggles)

Why can't the birth record be given up?  They make it clear that it's not yours (same with SS card, drivers license, credit cards, bank accounts, etc that are all directly linked to the NAME) and you only receive a copy of it to hold and "use", thus unknowingly consenting to be the bodily surety for the NAME they created and whatever rules they arbitrarily affix to that status.  Seems there would be a way to return it to the owner, the state that created it, thus canceling the surety position.  Probably something to do with the state's Secretary of State office since they issued it.  Since modern citizenship is truly defined as consenting to being the surety for the NAME, "citizenship" is given up when the contracts arising from the birth record are canceled.  No need to leave the land mass.  In fact, I think that's the worst possible step!  Not holding "Citizenship" doesn't mean you can't live on this land mass.  Only means you can't use the services/benefits provided (nor be liable for the liabilities like income tax) reserved for the "federal employees".

Your link is interesting and the wording is very carefully chosen.  Technically, the US Secretary of State _is_ in a foreign country/territory.  It's called Washington D.C.  No need to leave the land mass to renounce there.  The "United States" is the federal corporation, not the land mass.  Such an interesting topic!




> Or you could just go underground- only work for cash and live like an illegal immigrant.


Would still have to cancel all of the contracts that create the liabilities.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> My extensive research on this topic leads me to conclude that the only way to truly and lawfully avoid personal income tax is to cease being a "federal employee" in any way.  That means canceling your birth certificate, rescinding social security membership and no longer using the banker's private credit.  If any of those are still in effect then one is still a "taxpayer".  The next step is to incorporate a new corporate entity (instead of the current corporate entity you live under, called the ALL CAPITAL NAME, which dies once the BC and SS are canceled) and live under the new corporate entity.  Then, you can take advantage of all of the loopholes that GE, et al, take advantage of to not pay any corporate taxes.  In essence, remove your body from a position as surety for the corporation that THEY created (which makes you a federal employee) and instead become surety for the one YOU create.  Or, instead of creating a new "corporation" that you control, you could just go plain sovereign and not engage in any of it and just live off the land, barter goods and any FRNs you come across use as barter instead of as "money".  
> 
> The whole system is based on consenting so stop consenting by using their creations.  That's obviously the Cliff Notes version but that's the big picture.
> 
> (why was this thread moved?  too much truth for too many eyes?  it's not a constitutional issue since the constitution doesn't exist as law any more.)


Ya, except my birth certificate does NOT have all caps.  Mine was hand typed and used proper capitalization (as all birth certificates did before the age of computers).  The ALL CAPS comes about because that's the way the early computer systems worked. 

So I guess I'm free and clear then because my birth certificate does not have ALL CAPS...

----------


## devil21

That's not how it works.  Trust me, if you were born in a hospital here and have a certificate of live birth, regardless of the capitalization of that record, it was forwarded by your state's Secretary of State to the Department of Commerce for conversion into a securitized financial instrument that is currently in the custody of the bankers.

http://realityinsight.weebly.com/the...and-bank-notes

----------


## Weston White

> You realize, don't you, that even without the 16th Congress has the power to levy an unapportioned tax on wages?


This is the core of deception that you mindlessly spew all over the Internet and God knows where else--Congress may ONLY levy or impose unapportioned taxes upon income FROM wages, but NOT wages.  This is the CRUX of why the USSC has to date avoided every request for certiorari concerning individual income taxation.

Certainly, wages ARE income, it is just that wages are NOT taxable income--in so far that such is not qualified as 'constitutional income'.

----------


## Weston White

> The argument that a tax on personal earnings is a direct tax was considered and rejected in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), where the Court held that the Civil War income tax was in the nature of a duty or excise.



There is an obvious distinction between a tax imposed directly upon an object/activity and a tax imposed upon what is derived from an object/activity.  Gee, one would imagine that your supposed many, many, many years of lawyerly experience would have at least taught you that.

----------


## Weston White

> It's understandable that someone who has fallen for Peter Hendrickson's scam would think that the income tax system is lawless, but I assure you that it is not.  It may very well be bad policy, but to claim that it isn't based on the law simply displays ignorance.


Peter Hendrickson's scam?  Certainly, his method overlooks a few necessary aspects as stated within the CFR (such as providing an affidavit setting forth your claim), it is certainly not a scam.  You have EVERY legal right to file for a valid claim of refund, it is provided for with the IRC--the entire process is laid out there; however, the IRS is not whatsoever trained on this, rather ignoring it entirely--such is a matter for the IRS to review and correspond any concerns with each filer making such claims.  This is not a matter for you and your Q-LOST buddies to inject your personal or professional beliefs in.

----------


## Weston White

> Your signature is hopelessly wrong and misleading.  I've already pointed out that income from illegal activities is taxable, yet you and the other Hendrickson lemmings have yet to show what privilege is involved in such cases.


A tax on illegal activities would be a tax on the privilege of violating the law, yes?  Much in the same way as a speeding, parking, or red light violation ticket is a fee on the privilege of violating a state's traffic laws.

Also you cannot accurately look towards tax cases involving individuals to substantiate your point, as the majority of them are resolved in Tax Court as unpublished opinions or are settled during discovery in trial court--in-fact the only cases that really only go forward to appeals are the clear-cut frivolous argument ones and the majority of those are pro per.

However, there is one very intriguing (vacated) case that I have pointed you to before: Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, No. 05-5139, D.C. Cir., (2006), VACATED in ibid., (2007).  This complete 180-degree two-fer case clearly proves that there are external forces compelling the courts to maintain the status quo.

----------


## Weston White

> The 16th was needed because the Supreme Court ruled in 1895 that a tax on investment income was a direct tax that had to be apportioned in order to be constitutional.  But the Court went out of its way to limit its holding to taxes on investment income and in dicta recognized the validity of an unapportioned tax on wages.


NEGATIVE, not a an unapportioned tax on wages, but an unapportioned tax on income FROM wages.  Similarly, as the issue before the court was not a tax upon the investment, but UPON the income ascending the investment.  Ergo, the financial CORPUS versus its GAIN, PROFIT or INCOME.

----------


## Weston White

> Yes, but a tax on wages isn't a direct tax.


Yes it is, it found within the definition of what a personal tax or capitation tax is.

----------


## Weston White

> Interestingly, I have no issue with what you posted about the 16th Amendment.  But then you spoiled everything by claiming the income tax is a privilege tax, which is demonstrably false -- e.g., income from illegal activities is taxable; when did Congress begin granting privileges to engage in criminal activity?


See this is your malfunction, you continuously fail to grasp that at its core an income tax is a tax upon the privilege of acquiring wealth beyond your invested capital.  Congress, is not excusing crimes as a privilege per se, but still to benefit from criminality is a privilege (afforded by the Fifth Amend.) and those benefits may be taxed.

----------


## Weston White

> My puzzlement dealt with how that passage is consistent with the notion that taxation is theft under God's law.  If taxation were always theft under any conceivable circumstances it would have been pointless for Paul to use taxation as an example of when it would be appropriate to obey the authorities.


Taxation of one's capital, and direct taxation is theft.  Your puzzlement solved by "The Law", read also John Locke's works:




> But yet he may live and enjoy, by seizing and appropriating the productions of the faculties of his fellow men.  This is the origin of plunder.

----------


## kfarnan

The issue is direct v. indirect.  Direct taxation is a control mechanism.  It is enforced only with violence, fear and coercion.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Taxation of one's capital, and direct taxation is theft.  Your puzzlement solved by "The Law", read also John Locke's works:


You read them, especially this:




> 140. It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent- i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them...


And you still haven't a clue.

----------


## devil21

> And you still haven't a clue.


Do _you_ have a clue?  

The problem with citing that passage is that no one owns their "estate" under the current (corporate) admiralty law system.  The bankers hold your estate in trust (as trustee) and you are merely a beneficiary of your own estate.  You, however, do not own nor control your estate (bankers hold the title), therefore you can not pay out of your own estate.  Only the trustee can pay out of an estate.  So in (legal) reality, if the bankers forwarded a portion of your estate, which they hold in trust, to the corporate government to cover your "share" of the protection, that would meet the passage you cited.  Forcing you to give up the fruit of your labor to cover your "share", while the bankers STILL hold your estate, sounds a bit like fraud to me.

----------


## Weston White

> And you still haven't a clue.


When in the hell was the last time there was any serious debate one way or the other on the subject of federal income taxes?  I know I was not around to provide my input during the 1900's and neither in the 1940's, were you?

----------


## Danke

> Your signature is hopelessly wrong and misleading.  I've already pointed out that income from illegal activities is taxable, yet you and the other Hendrickson lemmings have yet to show what privilege is involved in such cases.  You have also failed to produce a single case in which someone has avoided taxation because his income was earned in private, non-privileged activity.  This isn't surprising, since there aren't any.  In fact, everyone who has made this lame argument in court has lost.  And it's not because "the courts are corrupt" -- that is the last pathetic excuse tax protesters like you come up with when all of their crackpot legal arguments have been rejected for the intellectual swill that they are.  No, they are rejected because they are wrong as a matter of law.
> 
> A statist is one who believes that everything the State does is OK.  I do not.  Your use of the term to smear anyone who dares expose the idiotic misrepresentations of the law peddled by Hendrickson, Schiff, and other charlatans simply demonstrates that you can't defend your position on legal grounds.
> 
> Incidentally, I've also pointed out that your reference to Federalist 15 has nothing to do with current law.  The quote was a criticism of the taxing system under the Articles of Confederation, which was an utter failure.


So what is your argument on what they can and cannot tax?  I pay "wages" to a person in Pakastan to write code for me in FRNs.

Is that person liable to pay the IRS income taxes, why or why not?

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Do _you_ have a clue?  
> 
> The problem with citing that passage is that no one owns their "estate" under the current (corporate) admiralty law system.  The bankers hold your estate in trust (as trustee) and you are merely a beneficiary of your own estate.  You, however, do not own nor control your estate (bankers hold the title), therefore you can not pay out of your own estate.  Only the trustee can pay out of an estate.  So in (legal) reality, if the bankers forwarded a portion of your estate, which they hold in trust, to the corporate government to cover your "share" of the protection, that would meet the passage you cited.  Forcing you to give up the fruit of your labor to cover your "share", while the bankers STILL hold your estate, sounds a bit like fraud to me.


Ya, "Corporate" law is a fraud, "criminal" law is a fraud, "civil" law is a fraud...  Now you're getting it.  It's ALL fraud.  TPTB don't give a DAMN about any "law".  Those are only written so that the little people will think these goons have "proper authority" to rape and plunder them...

The only "law" is the law of the jungle and it's clear that's what rules in seats of goonerment!

----------


## Carlybee

Regardless, the IRS will shut your business down if you don't withhold and pay them...not to mention fine you.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> So what is your argument on what they can and cannot tax?  I pay "wages" to a person in Pakastan to write code for me in FRNs.
> 
> Is that person liable to pay the IRS income taxes, why or why not?


The fact that you pay him in FRN's is irrelevant.  Whether a payment constitutes gross income isn't dependent on the medium of payment. 

Under IRC §872, the gross income of a nonresident alien includes only (a) income derived from U.S. sources and that isn't effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S., or (b) income that's effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S.

(a) is ruled out because the guy isn't working in the U.S., and therefore under §862 his compensation isn't U.S.-sourced income.  Similarly, (b) doesn't apply because §864(b)(4) says that income that isn't U.S.-sourced is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. only in certain circumstances, none of which involves compensation for services.  So no, the guy isn't liable for U.S. income tax on what you pay him.

----------


## Feelgood

> Regardless, the IRS will shut your business down if you don't withhold and pay them...not to mention fine you.


Bingo! Even though they do not have the authority. And the fines accrue interest daily.

----------


## Weston White

Well to answer my own question, being that Mr. Genius avoided it.  The answer is NEVER; although there was to be a joint hearing back in 2001/2002 involving Bob Shultz, Congressman Bartlett, and We The People Foundation, but everybody got cold feet and cancelled the hearing--the DOJ and IRS having crystalized that they do NOT answer to WE THE PEOPLE: http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlig...e/Archive1.htm

ETA: 

http://www.givemeliberty.org/feature...es01-29-02.pdf

----------


## Danke

> The fact that you pay him in FRN's is irrelevant.  Whether a payment constitutes gross income isn't dependent on the medium of payment. 
> 
> Under IRC §872, the gross income of a nonresident alien includes only (a) income derived from U.S. sources and that isn't effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S., or (b) income that's effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S.
> 
> (a) is ruled out because the guy isn't working in the U.S., and therefore under §862 his compensation isn't U.S.-sourced income.  Similarly, (b) doesn't apply because §864(b)(4) says that income that isn't U.S.-sourced is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. only in certain circumstances, none of which involves compensation for services.  So no, the guy isn't liable for U.S. income tax on what you pay him.


"U.S." Another can of worms.

----------


## devil21

bump for a fun thread.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> bump for a fun thread.


There really isn't anything fun about being extorted for huge sums of money at the point of a gun...

----------


## devil21

> There really isn't anything fun about being extorted for huge sums of money at the point of a gun...


It was fun to write and share important info on.

----------

