in tax debate, need help.
- Thread starter garrettwombat
- Start date
Bout time somebody brought up Miller...
Just as a clarification, the only means by which you can get out of a CRIMINAL tax prosecution is to prove to a jury that you were not culpable of the crime. Not that you didn't commit a crime, but that you HONESTLY BELIEVED you didn't have to pay taxes.
Edu is setting forth an argument of remaining entirely free of government and actively dodging the subject of this thread which is whether THE LAW requires you to pay income tax. It does and if you fail to, they will come after you. If you'd like a way AROUND the law, then by all means, follow Edu's links and internet videos. Breaking the law is a choice you make on your own, but don't let an internet video (or this thread) make you think you're an expert on the Constitution or Federal law.
Lots of ignorance parading around in the cloak of self-righteous justification. I'm not saying I don't think it's WRONG, but as the above case cite pointed out, the judiciary isn't going to dick around listening to your half-baked arguments. You want to change the tax law, fight it in congress not in court.
Just as a clarification, the only means by which you can get out of a CRIMINAL tax prosecution is to prove to a jury that you were not culpable of the crime. Not that you didn't commit a crime, but that you HONESTLY BELIEVED you didn't have to pay taxes.
Edu is setting forth an argument of remaining entirely free of government and actively dodging the subject of this thread which is whether THE LAW requires you to pay income tax. It does and if you fail to, they will come after you. If you'd like a way AROUND the law, then by all means, follow Edu's links and internet videos. Breaking the law is a choice you make on your own, but don't let an internet video (or this thread) make you think you're an expert on the Constitution or Federal law.
Lots of ignorance parading around in the cloak of self-righteous justification. I'm not saying I don't think it's WRONG, but as the above case cite pointed out, the judiciary isn't going to dick around listening to your half-baked arguments. You want to change the tax law, fight it in congress not in court.
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
danberkeley
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,243
You don't HAVE to pay the taxes the federal government says you must pay. If you do not, however, the federal government WILL go after you. It's all a matter of who has the bigger guns.
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
I guess you could say that about any law... you dont HAVE to pay a speeding ticket that the city says you must pay. If you do not, however, the city WILL go after you. It's all a matter of who has the bigger guns.
phoenixzorn
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2008
- Messages
- 182
robert4rp08
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,613
Not entirely true. You are born into this world as a citizen of the state. However, very early on, you surrender (unknowingly and "voluntarily") your state citizenship to become a federal citizen (14th amendment citizen). The Social Security program is usually the first thing that gets everyone. State citizens are bound and protected by the Constitution. Federal citizens are bound to the contracts made with the federal government.
State citizens have inalienable rights.
Federal citizens have civil rights.
There is a HUGE difference between the two. Check out this page: http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/On_State_Citizenship.html
I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it is a good launch pad into doing your own research.
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
Mr. White, you are a lawyer or a law student correct?
If so, tell me if this is correct.
In order to raise of defense in a criminal proceeding of mistake of law as was in the Cheek Supreme Court case, under the Model Penal Code,
Section 2.04
Mistake of same law is no defense unless it falls under one of the exceptions
1. either the mistake is of a required Mens Rea (culpability) of the actual law.
2. or the law provides that a mistake of Mens Rea is a defense.
3. or the law is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably been make available prior to the conduct alleged.
(courts have interpreted this to mean that if the law that was not available AND it is not something that a reasonable person would know was a law requiring their action or inaction then it is a defense)
4. or the mistake was in reasonable reliance on an official statement of law such as a court, and afterwards determined to be invalid or erroneous
The Cheek case fell within the 1. mistake above.
He tried to say that he lacked the Mens Rea of Willful, meaning purpose to not file.
The Court ruled that just because he was part of the tax protest movement and they had convinced him that the law was unconstitutional didnt mean that he lacked the Mens Rea of Willful.
The word "protest" in itself means that you know of the required action (pay taxes) but you are protesting it by some means.
Therefore, Cheek, had the required Mens Rea of willful to not file a tax return.
I know that it is hard to understand the Cheek case if you havent been to law school. Go to law school and you will see why these decisions are the way they are...
If so, tell me if this is correct.
In order to raise of defense in a criminal proceeding of mistake of law as was in the Cheek Supreme Court case, under the Model Penal Code,
Section 2.04
Mistake of same law is no defense unless it falls under one of the exceptions
1. either the mistake is of a required Mens Rea (culpability) of the actual law.
2. or the law provides that a mistake of Mens Rea is a defense.
3. or the law is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably been make available prior to the conduct alleged.
(courts have interpreted this to mean that if the law that was not available AND it is not something that a reasonable person would know was a law requiring their action or inaction then it is a defense)
4. or the mistake was in reasonable reliance on an official statement of law such as a court, and afterwards determined to be invalid or erroneous
The Cheek case fell within the 1. mistake above.
He tried to say that he lacked the Mens Rea of Willful, meaning purpose to not file.
The Court ruled that just because he was part of the tax protest movement and they had convinced him that the law was unconstitutional didnt mean that he lacked the Mens Rea of Willful.
The word "protest" in itself means that you know of the required action (pay taxes) but you are protesting it by some means.
Therefore, Cheek, had the required Mens Rea of willful to not file a tax return.
I know that it is hard to understand the Cheek case if you havent been to law school. Go to law school and you will see why these decisions are the way they are...
Last edited:
Plenty of quoted case law in this thread, and the world is full of assinine case law decided by the courts. As a cop, I've seen plenty of nonsensical arguments made by attorneys and judges alike.
Just because a court, even the SCOTUS, renders an opinion does not mean that it's a logical, just, or accurate. Kelo v. City of New London, anyone?
Dumb it down for me. Someone show me the specific law - statute- that says you and I must pay taxes on our income earned. I'm not saying it doesn't exist...I'm just asking for someone to save me from the circular arguments that prove nothing, and show me a specific law.
Just because a court, even the SCOTUS, renders an opinion does not mean that it's a logical, just, or accurate. Kelo v. City of New London, anyone?
Dumb it down for me. Someone show me the specific law - statute- that says you and I must pay taxes on our income earned. I'm not saying it doesn't exist...I'm just asking for someone to save me from the circular arguments that prove nothing, and show me a specific law.
Last edited:
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
The Kelo case was a property eminent domain case where the city was a crap hole and they wanted to revitalize the city with new projects. The arg. was that the revitalization even though through private means was a social benefit and therefore, sufficient to support the taking of the land.
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
http://www.fraudsandscams.com/answer.htm
This Isn't Rocket Science
By: Bill E. Branscum
Copyright 2006
Some years ago, while serving as a federal agent, I stopped a Beechcraft King Air departing Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport en route to Colombia, I boarded the airplane without invitation, I demanded that the apparent owner of the airplane open his briefcase, I threatened to destroy the locked briefcase if he failed to comply, I examined the documents thereby produced, and I subsequently seized the airplane . . . all of which absent articulable probable cause.
Sometime later, a wonderfully arrogant defense attorney, sarcastically walked me thru my credentials, education, training and experience, and then asked me [with all manner of self-righteous indignation] to explain how it was that a federal agent with my experience, having a college degree in Criminal Justice, and being the Honor Graduate at the federal academy could have done all these intrusive and egregiously abusive things to his client, with no probable cause whatsoever, and expected to be able to get away with it.
It was a remarkably regrettable error on his part, and it afforded everyone present an opportunity to enjoy a little levity at his expense. I wonder if he is currently using that same tenor and tone when asking, "Do you want fries with that?"
Being able to spank him with the sections of Title 19 of the United States Code that apply to Special Agents of the United States Customs Service, and give the Customs Service a unique search authority at the borders, or functional equivalent thereof, was nothing to boast about. It was nothing more than demonstrating that I knew how to do my job. I cannot begin to imagine how any law enforcement officer can exercise any enforcement authority, impacting upon any citizen of the United States, without being able to explain how and why.
Therefore, it embarrasses me to see defense attorneys befuddle federal agents, especially Special Agents of the Internal Revenue Service, with basic, fundamental questions that they should have anticipated, and should have been prepared to answer on the witness stand. "Can you show me where it says my Client is obligated to pay income tax," is not a trick question.
As Special Agents employed by the federal government, the highest paid criminal investigators employed by any governmental entity in the world, the American public has a right to expect a modicum of professionalism. Can you imagine seeing any traffic cop anywhere mumbling, "Gee, I dunno," in response to a motorist demanding to know, "Where does it say I cannot drive as fast as I want to go?"
Brothers and Sisters, please stop letting the circus performers of the courtroom make us all look stupid, by dramatically whipping out their trusty copy of the Internal Revenue Code, and demanding that you answer the simplest of all tax questions . . . especially when you have to know that the simple question is going to be asked. How could it not be, if you are proposing to put a man in jail for having the temerity to ask it?
I have news for you. If we are going to take the position that, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," we cannot use that as justification for our own ignorance. It's bad enough to put people in jail for asking a question you won't or didn't answer, and I have a real problem with that. The notion that any of us would have the audacity to presume to put a man in jail for asking a question we cannot answer seems asinine to me beyond all conception.
If we are going to do that, we might as well applaud the burning of Giordano Bruno, and push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.
The question is asked, and will continue to be asked until you answer it, "Can you show me where it imposes upon my Client the obligation to pay income tax?"
If handed the IRC, start with line item number 5.
1. Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, provides that Congress has the power to tax.
2. Congress makes laws, and ultimately delegates the enforcement of those laws, through the Secretary of the Treasury, to the Internal Revenue Service -- that being the executive office agency that employs IRS agents.
3. The laws of the United States, as enacted by Congress, are published in a series of volumes, normally referred to as "Titles," collectively called the United States Code.
4. Title 26 of the United States Code is the Internal Revenue Code
5. Title 26, Subtitle A is entitled, "Income Taxes."
6. Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 is entitled, "Normal Taxes and Surtaxes."
7. Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1 is entitled, "Determination of Tax Liability."
8. Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Part 1, is entitled, "Tax on Individuals." Depending upon whether the individual is Single, Married, Head of Household, . . . you will find the imposition of their tax obligation right there.
So please, when asked the most basic of all tax questions, for your sake, for our sake, and for the sake of those reasonable few who are genuinely seeking an answer . . . lose that "deer in the headlights" look, and answer the damn thing.
Personally, I understand that the die hard twit wits of the tax protester movement will not accept that as an answer, and they will go on, and on, and on . . . ad infinitum, ad nauseum, with their insufferably ridiculous arguments. You know that, and I know that but it's not your problem, it's not our problem, and the jurors looking to you for an answer won't care. It will be enough that you answered the question, that you have explained to the jury why THEY pay THEIR taxes, and demonstrated to the satisfaction of those who matter that you know how to do your job.
We'll all be wonderfully proud of you, and the circus performers can go home to stand in front of their mirrors to practice, "Do you want fries with that."
Oracle International
Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
[email protected]
(239) 304-1639
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
To view the law in it's actual wording go here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
or
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...subchapters/a/parts/i/sections/section_1.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
or
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...subchapters/a/parts/i/sections/section_1.html
Last edited:
There are a number of threads on this already, just do a search.
Lots of people will quote tax code.
The supreme court has very clearly ruled that 'income' is corporate profit. Wage earners are not corporations, and the supreme court has defined income from wages as personal property.
Income tax laws/code are valid, when applied to corporate profit. To apply them to wages earned is a violation of supreme court rulings, or in other words, illegal.
How long before this ends up in hot topics?
Lots of people will quote tax code.
The supreme court has very clearly ruled that 'income' is corporate profit. Wage earners are not corporations, and the supreme court has defined income from wages as personal property.
Income tax laws/code are valid, when applied to corporate profit. To apply them to wages earned is a violation of supreme court rulings, or in other words, illegal.
How long before this ends up in hot topics?
danberkeley
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,243
I guess you could say that about any law... you dont HAVE to pay a speeding ticket that the city says you must pay. If you do not, however, the city WILL go after you. It's all a matter of who has the bigger guns.
exactly!
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
Oh God, here we go again... go back and read this entire thread.. we have already debunked your arg.
Until you can cite to that Supreme Court case, then I cannot believe your statement about
"The supreme court has very clearly ruled that 'income' is corporate profit. Wage earners are not corporations, and the supreme court has defined income from wages as personal property."
If you have read this thread then you will see a federal appellate court that struck down this very argument.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=123197&page=5
Plus, even if the Supreme Court defines a term, that doesnt mean that they are deciding your particular argument. A definition of a term can have one meaning in one situation and another in a different situation.
So unless this argument was brought before the Supreme Court, and they defined income in that case then I can believe you. But it is likely that you are talking about a Supreme Court case that is distinguishable from the arg. you are trying to advance.
I am in law school so I have access to unlimited legal resources. And I have been researching this for months now, and I have not come across the case you speak of...
Give me the citation to the case and I will look it up and we can read it together... How about that?
Last edited:
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
HAHA, I knew that this would get move out of the grassroots section as soon as I posted the actual law! It was at the top of the grassroots forum for almost 2 days then as soon as I post the law it gets moved to the smokey back room.
People need to learn this stuff so they dont make a mistake that will cost them an enormous amount of money and heartache. By moving this thread, it only perpetuates all of the anti-truth infesting this message board.
People need to learn this stuff so they dont make a mistake that will cost them an enormous amount of money and heartache. By moving this thread, it only perpetuates all of the anti-truth infesting this message board.
Last edited:
Truth-Bringer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 601
I explain the income tax fraud in detail on this thread. If you want all the facts, read my posts here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320
There is a law, but it is being fraudulently and deceptively misapplied to every American citizen.
Truth-Bringer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 601
HAHA, I knew that this would get move out of the grassroots section as soon as I posted the actual law! It was at the top of the grassroots forum for almost 2 days then as soon as I post the law it gets moved to the smokey back room.
People need to learn this stuff so they dont make a mistake that will cost them an enormous amount of money and heartache. By moving this thread, it only perpetuates all of the anti-truth infesting this message board.
Your nonsense and ignorance are refuted here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320
Here are some questions for you. Good luck disproving them:
What is a tax "Return"?
A "return" is NOT a piece of paper within the "Internal" Revenue Code: it only describes a "kickback" of a federal payments!
Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code is the term "return" defined by itself. Consequently, there is no basis within the I.R.C. or the regulations which implement it to conclude that it means a paper document. Below is the most prominent place where it is mentioned, but not defined:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 7203
§7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
What is a "return" and what does it mean from a legal perspective to "make a return", then?
Even more importantly, how can you "make a return" if there isn’t a positive law anywhere that even defines what it is? The statute above is NOT law or positive law, so it doesn't help us at all. According to 26 U.S.C. §7806(b), the title of a code section means nothing, and therefore "file" is irrelevant because it is not mentioned. The body of the section says "make" instead of "file", so what they are really saying is that one must return to the government some amount of money. The section simply says it’s a crime to fail to do that which is never legally defined anywhere in the "code". There are many "presumptions" that people in the tax industry make about what a "return" is, but the only source we are allowed to rely upon as law abiding citizens are enacted, positive law statutes. Everything else is just second-hand, hearsay evidence upon which to base a good faith belief.
If you electronically search the entire IRC as we did, in fact, you will find several references to the phrase "return of income" but no references to "return" by itself anyplace but the above statute. Even more interesting is the definition of what a "return of income" is. After careful examination of all statutes that mention "returns", we conclude based on the preponderance of evidence that it really means a "return of income", which is a fancy way of describing a "kickback" or "bribe" given by federal "employees" to their "employer", the federal government. Below are just a few examples from the "code" that prove that a "return" is actually a payment to the government, and not simply a paper document as the IRS would have you mistakenly believe:
26 U.S.C. §6012.i> Persons required to make returns of income
(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1) (A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual -
26 U.S.C. §7508. Time for performing certain acts postponed by reason of service in combat zone
(a) Time to be disregarded
In the case of an individual serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, or serving in support of such Armed Forces, in an area designated by the President of the United States by Executive order as a ''combat zone'' for purposes of section 112, ........, shall be disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue laws, in respect of any tax liability (including any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax) of such individual -
1) Whether any of the following acts was performed within the time prescribed thereof:
(A) Filing any return of income, estate, or gift tax (except income tax withheld at source and income tax imposed by subtitle C or any law superseded thereby);
26 U.S.C. §6075. Time for filing estate and gift tax returns
(a) Returns relating to large transfers at death
The return required by section 6018 with respect to a decedent shall be filed with the return of the tax imposed by chapter 1 for the decedent's last taxable year or such later date specified in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(b) Gift tax returns
(1) General rule
Returns made under section 6019 (relating to gift taxes) shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year.
(2) Extension where taxpayer granted extension for filing income tax return
Any extension of time granted the taxpayer for filing the return of income taxes imposed by subtitle A for any taxable year which is a calendar year shall be deemed to be also an extension of time granted the taxpayer for filing the return under section 6019 for such calendar year.
A "return" within the I.R.C. is therefore in effect and in truth a compelled "bribe" payment to the government for the "privilege" of having a federal job or receiving federal "payment". Recall that the U.S. government is defined in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) as a "federal corporation". As you will learn later, "income" is defined by the Sixteenth Amendment as "corporate profit". The IRS fakes most of us out into admitting we are "employees" of this federal corporation on the W-4 form, which says "employee" in the upper left corner. Under 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) and 26 CFR §31.3401 (c )-1, only those who are "public officers", who are "officers of a corporation" can be "employees". All such corporate officers ("taxpayers") are described in the code as being involved in a "trade or business" in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26). Therefore, nearly all "taxpayers" under the I.R.C. are engaged in a "trade or business", which is a "public office", within the "United States", which is the United States federal government. Receipt of a federal payment by a public officer is then counted as "corporate profit" under the I.R.C. and we as the recipients are in the custody of corporate profit which must be returned to the federal government. The "tax" on this "corporate profit" under the I.R.C. is effectively a "return" or kickback of a percentage of the privileged payment received from the federal government. Until federal "tax" is withheld and paid, we are acting as a "fiduciary" or "transferee" (see 26 U.S.C. §6901) over federal property, and "in rem" federal jurisdiction exists over the property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Therefore, an "income tax" is nothing but a federal employee kickback payment. Those private citizens who refuse to commit perjury on a W- 4 form by declaring themselves to be federal "employees" or who refuse to pay this illegal bribe and expose this fraud for what it is may be slandered, called a tax cheat, and/or fired with no law authorizing such treatment whatsoever.
QUESTION FOR DOUBTERS:
If you disagree, please show us a section anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code or Treasury Regulations that defines a "return" as anything OTHER than a kickback payment from federal employees to the federal government. You are not allowed to "presume" otherwise. In the legal field, every statement and belief must be backed up with evidence or it is frivolous.
Why did the government implement the income tax this rather strange way? Isn’t it easier to just cut the pay of federal "employees" rather than overpay them and ask for the difference back? The answer is that the Constitution still prohibits direct taxes under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 without apportionment as repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court after the passage of the 16th ammendment. Therefore, the federal government couldn’t impose a lawful or constitutional income tax and never did attempt to tax people in states of the Union using the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, they created a federal employee kickback program that only applied in the District of Columbia initially. This first "tax" or kickback program started during the Civil War with the Revenue Act of 1862, and applied only to public officers and excluded federal judges. Gradually since that time, our public servants in the "District of Criminals" have hijacked our legal system with the cooperation of the gov't lawyers and the federal judiciary. Of course this is for their benefit to confuse most of us by rewriting/expanding the code using vague and/or redefined "words of art" to expand the operation of this kickback "scheme" outside the District of Columbia by fooling people in the states of the Union into believing that they the proper subjects for what amounts to a tax exclusively on federal "employees".
Within the Internal Revenue Code, the only natural persons (biological people) who earn "income" are those who receive these federal payments. This is confirmed by examining 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii), which says that only those who have "income effectively connected with a trade or business" can earn "gross income":
NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY
Tax on Individuals
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a)(2)(ii) For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1970, the tax imposed by section 1(d), as amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1969, shall apply to the income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by a married alien individual who is a nonresident of the United States for all or part of the taxable year or by a foreign estate or trust. For such years the tax imposed by section 1 (c), as amended by such Act, shall apply to the income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by an unmarried alien individual (other than a surviving spouse) who is a nonresident of the United States for all or part of the taxable year.
See paragraph (b)(2) of section 1.871-8." [26 CFR § 1.1- 1(a)(2)(ii)] "trade or business" is then defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as "the functions of a public office" in the U.S government.
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)
"The term 'trade or business' includes [is limited to] the performance of the functions of a public office."
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) also confirms that if we don’t earn any income from within the District of Columbia, which is called the "United States" in the I.R.C., and if that income is not connected to a "trade or business", then it is foreign to the I.R.C. and outside the jurisdiction of the I.R.S.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > §7701
§7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(31) Foreign estate or trust
The term "foreign estate" means an estate the income of which, from sources without the [federal] United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.
Therefore, only those who consent to be "taxpayers" and who receive a federal payments greater than the "exemption amount" indicated in 26 U.S.C. §6012 above must make a "return of income" to the government. The only way a person can earn such "income" and "gross income" is to have earnings "effectively connected with a trade or business in the [federal] United States", which is lawyer-trickery for saying that a person must be engaged in a political office (in the District of Columbia, which is the what "United States" is defined to mean in 26 U.S.C. §7701 (a)(9) and (a)(10)).
QUESTION FOR DOUBTERS:
If you think we are wrong in our conclusions relating to a "trade or business" here, then please explain why 26 U.S.C. §6902(a) and 26 U.S.C. §6901(a)(1)(A)(i) places the burden of proof upon the Secretary of the Treasury in Tax Court Proceedings to prove that their opponent is a "transferee", which is a fiduciary of federal property connected to a "public office"? We assert that the only "taxpayer" who can litigate in Tax Court is one who is engaged in a "trade or business", which is a public office in the U.S. government.
Last edited:
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
You obviously dont know how our legal system works. You systematically go through IRS code, and CFR regulation and pick out words that "could" have another meaning.
YOU ARE NOT A UNITED STATES JUDGE. Only judges can interpret the law from the legislature. And they have done so NUMEROUS times.
Throughout your diatribe above, you took issue with the following:
return,make,file,presumptions,code,employees,employer...(not an all inclusive list)
What the Courts have done, is realized that the Tax Protest movement will never give up, and as soon as they rule on one of the definitions of the words above, you will just move to the next word.
Therefore, they have deemed these arguments to be frivolous due to the fact that they have already ruled that you must pay an income (wage) tax.
By bringing these arguments in court it wastes the courts time, and OUR tax payer money. If you believe your own arguments then I know many lawyers that would love to help you as long as you pay up front... no contingency.
Every time I refute one argument with case law, another misinformed person shows up with a totally different argument. I refute another, then another person comes... etc. You get the point, and I now see why courts have deemed these to be frivolous so they can dispose of them BEFORE a huge trial erupts, which would waste your time and money and the courts time and OUR tax money.
Similar threads
