Economic: Taxes: There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country.

[Sonny Tufts]

Mr. Evans’ “analysis” on the matter presently held in debate is itself a fallacy fulfillment of inaccuracy. His “Tax Protester FAQ” is a contrivance of warped reckoning.

Mr. White, you continue to fail to cite any inaccuracies on Mr. Evans' site. This isn't surprising, since there aren't any.

4. Presuming that the federal income tax was intended to tax the source as well as its growth, then it is still an unconstitutional method of taxation, as even though apportionment be not required, the requirement for exigent circumstances is withstanding under such a direct form of taxation upon such sources, aside from the indirect taxing of the source’s growth.

The Constitution doesn't require "exigent circumstances". Really, you should take time to actually read the language of the Constitution instead of trying to insert into it stuff that isn't there.

 

[Weston White]

What you mean is that you read into the statute whatever language is necessary to support your preconceived anti-tax position.

1. No, that is not it at all, one need only to read the respective statutes, while you -a Mr. Skull & Bones wannabe- seem to be wanting a header entitled “Taxable Privileges” or something to that effect. That is simply not the case nor is it a necessity, as the taxable activities and such other privileges have been encoded within the federal income tax statutes, be they inclusive to such specifically enumerated/numerated items or not.
2. I am not “anti-tax”, I am hole-heartedly truth-in-taxation. I do not believe the IRS or the XVI Amendment, etc. need be abolished; only that employees of the IRS be mandated and personally held accountable through an empowered external oversight committee (that the public could readily file complaints with from within their regional service areas) to serve their public honestly, forthright, and with the upmost respect, while becomingly properly trained, and the XVI be enforced properly within its lawful scope. Because at this point in time none of the above is the case, e.g., IRS employees have zero knowledge about their agencies own regulatory procedures, don’t adhere to their own “Taxpayer Bill of Rights I/II” whatsoever, and aside from code processing under AMIS, IMF, etc., could care less what their own IRM states as to the fair, impartial, and unbiased treatment of individuals filing submissions with their myriad of offices.

You are incorrect. The tax base is called "taxable income".

Wrong, the starting point is in fact ‘gross income’, it is that ‘gross income’ less one’s ‘adjusted gross income’ that determines their ‘taxable income’; originally this process was simplified under ‘net income’.

Income taxes are not direct taxes; they are excises. The only case that has ever held that an income tax was a direct tax was the 1895 Pollock case, and even there the Supreme Court limited its holding to investment income. Taxes on wages and personal earnings have never been held to be direct taxes. In any event the 16th Amendment did away with the apportionment requirement for all income taxes.

1. Excises are not taxes upon individual right or necessity, but upon privilege and benefit, as public charges sought through powers of internal taxation. Neither, never have excise taxes been intended to impose tax upon livelihoods, laboring, subsistence earning, or any semblance thereof.
2. In England (from whence our entire legal system is based from) income taxes were understood to be a direct form of taxation.
3. Concerning Pollock you are being very dishonest, for the court had clarified that a tax levied upon real estate, or rents or incomes deriving from real estate, or upon personal property, or incomes deriving from personal property, were likewise ‘direct taxes’; thereby requiring apportionment.
4. It is quite clear that you hold neither any regard nor consideration as to the relational aspects between the source of the taxable activity (itself) and its taxable emanation, i.e., seeking to tax the “shadow” is indifferent than taxing the “source” from where it had derived, that is until that shadow has itself been severed from the source (by realizing its own increment in value through a bona fide ‘gain’ or ‘profit’).
5. No matter how you slice it, mince it, or dice it, or what shade of gray you desire to paint it, such a tax upon one’s essential livelihood, labor, or sustenance is and always has been correctly a personal tax (i.e., a capitation upon one’s personalty), and thereby requiring apportionment. There is simply no evidence providing exception to this rule in the ratification of the XVI Amendment or within any prior tax legislation. The context throughout Pollock clarifies this without a doubt, while your own falsehoods of what was meant by a few references here and there concerning professional employments, trades, occupations, etc., discredits only yourself; clearly the context was one of entrepreneurialism and not one of absolutely necessity in the continuance of life and family.

 

[Weston White]

Mr. White, you continue to fail to cite any inaccuracies on Mr. Evans' site. This isn't surprising, since there aren't any.

No, rather I have exercised my right to do so within my own writings, indirectly. If you think I am going to read through a 250,000 Webpage of complete hullabaloo and break it down for you line by line, then you are most certainly insane -besides by Mr. Evans’ own disclaimer located at the very top of that Webpage, he himself holds little credence in his very own work. While not intending to appear too “braggy”, clearly and unequivocally I decimate many of the key points being argued pros by Mr. Evans within his contrived “Tax Protester FAQ”, so really you ought not to flatter yourself too much on that point.

But really, why are you so interested in his FAQ, are you in fact Quatloser! member “LPC” himself? Common admit to it, it’s alright, I promise to not look down on you anymore than I already do, really.

The Constitution doesn't require "exigent circumstances". Really, you should take time to actually read the language of the Constitution instead of trying to insert into it stuff that isn't there.

Heh, so you think I have not read our U.S. Constitution (including our respective-fundamental documents)? Reading something is one thing, while researching it and revering it is something entirely different.

Clearly you know less than I had originally given you credit for. The point in which you had feebly refuted was addressed in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 566 (1895), therein while addressing the intended application of ‘direct taxes’, it was noted: “Id. 93. And John Adams, Dawes, Sumner, King, and Sedgwick all agreed that a direct tax would be the last source of revenue resorted to by Congress.” Reflected upon further at 157 U.S. 429, 574: “… That the original expectation was that the power of direct taxation would be exercised only in extraordinary exigencies…” And moreover noted at 157 U.S. 429, 564 and also in 158 U.S. 601, 606 (1895); 3 U.S. 171, 180 (1796). See also, Alexander Hamilton’s statements within Federalist Papers: No. 36, Para. 16 and No. 79, Para. 1.


Perhaps now might be an appropriate time for you to heed to ever-wise words:

“I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.” - H.L. Mencken

 

[Sonny Tufts]

the taxable activities and such other privileges have been encoded within the federal income tax statutes, be they inclusive to such specifically enumerated/numerated items or not.

The only "taxable activity" required to trigger the income tax is the receipt of income, whether it involves a privilege or not.

the starting point is in fact ‘gross income’, it is that ‘gross income’ less one’s ‘adjusted gross income’ that determines their ‘taxable income’; originally this process was simplified under ‘net income’.

Mr. White, you haven't a clue. Taxable income is gross income less allowable deductions and personal exemptions. Adjusted gross income is gross income minus what are called "above the line" deductions, such as moving expenses, student loan interest, and alimony paid. All other deductions are "below the line" and enter into the calculation of taxable income.

Excises are not taxes upon individual right or necessity, but upon privilege and benefit, as public charges sought through powers of internal taxation.

Balderdash. A person has the right to dispose of his property by gift -- that is one of the rights of private property. Yet the gift tax is an excise. There is no privilege involved whatsoever.

Neither, never have excise taxes been intended to impose tax upon livelihoods, laboring, subsistence earning, or any semblance thereof.

More balderdash. The law has never said that a tax on income needed for one's subsistence is a direct tax or that there is a floor above which the tax becomes an excise.

In England (from whence our entire legal system is based from) income taxes were understood to be a direct form of taxation.

Yes, and the Supreme Court has rejected this characterization in construing the direct tax clause in the Constitution.

Concerning Pollock you are being very dishonest, for the court had clarified that a tax levied upon real estate, or rents or incomes deriving from real estate, or upon personal property, or incomes deriving from personal property, were likewise ‘direct taxes’; thereby requiring apportionment.

No, it is you who are being dishonest in refusing to acknowledge that the Pollock decision recognized the validity of a tax on wages and personal earnings:

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such...

According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by a r the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole. Pollock

a tax upon one’s essential livelihood, labor, or sustenance is and always has been correctly a personal tax (i.e., a capitation upon one’s personalty), and thereby requiring apportionment. There is simply no evidence providing exception to this rule in the ratification of the XVI Amendment or within any prior tax legislation.

Mr. White, no court in the history of the United States has ever made such a holding regarding the federal income tax. If you think there is such a case, I'd like to see it. The income tax taxes income; it does not tax labor. Under your theory, there is some magical dividing line between the amount of income needed for someone to subsist on and an surplus amount that is presumably subject to taxation. But there isn't anything in the Constitution or the statutes that says that there is such a dividing line or income level. The 16th Amendment means what it says -- income taxes needn't be apportioned, period.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

While not intending to appear too “braggy”, clearly and unequivocally I decimate many of the key points being argued pros by Mr. Evans within his contrived “Tax Protester FAQ”, so really you ought not to flatter yourself too much on that point.

But really, why are you so interested in his FAQ, are you in fact Quatloser! member “LPC” himself? Common admit to it, it’s alright, I promise to not look down on you anymore than I already do, really.

Mr. White, you've decimated nothing. Your theories have no legal basis at all.

I referred to Mr. Evans's FAQ simply because others visiting this site might want to read about what the law really is. Mr. Evens (by the way, I am not he) is a tax attorney with far more legal experience and knowledge than you will ever have, and his site serves a valuable function by dispelling the various frivolous arguments that tax protestors have come up with from time to time. The arguments have been rejected time and again by the courts, not because the judges are part of some massive conspiracy to hide the "real" law, not because their salaries are paid by the government, not because they are afraid they'll get audited by the IRS, and not for some other paranoid reason, but because the arguments are WRONG.

I have read elsewhere on the Internet that you are pursuing a paralegal certificate. Do you honestly think this qualifies you to pontificate on tax law? Do you believe for one minute that you know more about tax law than the law professors and tax attorneys? Can you cite a single scholarly article that supports your arguments? Can you cite an instance where someone suceeded in avoiding taxes by using your theories?

Mr. White, you are a classic example of hubris.

 

[Weston White]

ROFL, aww, it seems that I have gravely upset the poor lil' black sheep, or did a certain somebody wake up a little cranky this morning... hehehe.

 

[Weston White]

The only "taxable activity" required to trigger the income tax is the receipt of income, whether it involves a privilege or not.

Negative, although I believe you had meant to state that under the individual income tax, the receipt of ‘gross income’ is the privilege to be taxed. Earning an honest livelihood is a core right to exist, while the participation in privileges and receipt of benefits are not.

Mr. White, you haven't a clue. Taxable income is gross income less allowable deductions and personal exemptions. Adjusted gross income is gross income minus what are called "above the line" deductions, such as moving expenses, student loan interest, and alimony paid. All other deductions are "below the line" and enter into the calculation of taxable income.

Oh really now, well in any case, the point you made is one that is very apparent. For if an individual has nothing to “adjust”, they then have no ‘adjusted gross income’; just the same if they are below the threshold of having ‘gross income’ then it stands they have no ‘taxable income’ to be reported either, save for their forced withholdings under bondage:

26 USC Sec. 62: “(a) General rule
For purposes of this subtitle, the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus the following deductions: …”

26 USC Sec. 63: “(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions
In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—
(1) the standard deduction, and
(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.”

Balderdash. A person has the right to dispose of his property by gift -- that is one of the rights of private property. Yet the gift tax is an excise. There is no privilege involved whatsoever.

This analogy of yours is perhaps one of the dumbest cockamamie things I have yet to have seen posted on the Internet. Geez, you should be embarrassed at yourself! Such is however, a benefit to the recipient, just the same as succession and gambling/wagering taxes, etc. Neither is the disposing of property inclusive of it being a gift unto another, while owning and possessing property is not the same as transferring ownership of that property and neither is the public use of that property, (e.g., driving one’s car around on public property or charging fares for rides to various public destinations, etc.) Otherwise, everybody could evade most all taxation simply by labeling it as a gift or bequest. Moreover, taxes upon gifts are not income taxes (that is at least until the gift has itself realized its possessor a bona fide gain or profit), they are just that “gift taxes”; so your comparison is ultimately a moot point, regardless.

More balderdash. The law has never said that a tax on income needed for one's subsistence is a direct tax or that there is a floor above which the tax becomes an excise.

More misdirection on your part as floor or ceiling sums, figures, and amounts have nothing to do with the given method or mode of the indirect income tax being sought. Moreover, it has never been the intention of any taxing statutes to tax at the ‘source’, that being one’s capital, principal, or stock; as it was stated in Pollock that contracts, personalty, occupations, and the like were never considered appropriate subjects of direct taxation, with slaves being the only exception under ‘capitation taxes’. Regardless, even if such was intended to be the case then it would stand that this very principle would apply to all citizens protected by the XIV Amendment and such other fundamental rights to life, liberty, and sought after happiness.

You seem to hold a grave desire to confabulate a non-existent connection between profiting from one’s occupation within a professional or enterprising capacity and acquiring a basic means of livelihood from one’s occupation within a subordinate-employee capacity. There is a crisp distinction between the two. By the by, the former very likely lives in a fanciful 5,000 sq. ft. house, hires weekly housekeeping, and drives a luxury import vehicle (or two) to and from work each day, while dressing in designer suits, and regularly enjoys fine dinning and extravagant vacations; while the latter lives their life always and forever dependant on credit and loan debt, rents a too small and overpriced apartment, townhouse, or condo, and drives a used domestic car that barely passes its smog test, while wearing clothing from whatever local outlet superstore that offers them the best savings, and considers dinner at Sizzler or IHOP a rare luxury and vacationing at all is but a distant dream.

Yes, and the Supreme Court has rejected this characterization in construing the direct tax clause in the Constitution.

If that had actually been the case then we would have no XVI Amendment. As however, such was in fact the case; for respective clarity had been realized within the Pollock case. Namely that a uniform tax being sought upon what had directly emanated from a source, which itself would have required apportionment (so being a direct tax) is correctly in either instance a tax thereby requiring apportionment -which consequently was the sole intent of the XVI Amendment, to cross-cancel that common law effect, by discarding all consideration to the source from whence the realization of the ‘net income’ hath emanated.

Also see:

direct tax - “A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax.”
http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/glossary.jsp#D

indirect tax - “A tax that can be shifted to others, such as business property taxes.”
http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/glossary.jsp#I


19 CFR § 351.102 [Customs Duties] Definitions.
…
(b) Definitions. (1) Act. “Act” means the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
…
(16) Direct tax. “Direct tax” means a tax on wages, profits, interests, rents, royalties, and all other forms of income, a tax on the ownership of real property, or a social welfare charge.
…
(28) Indirect tax. “Indirect tax” means a sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory, or equipment tax, a border tax, or any other tax other than a direct tax or an import charge.

No, it is you who are being dishonest in refusing to acknowledge that the Pollock decision recognized the validity of a tax on wages and personal earnings: …

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong… Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong… You’re wrong! You’re wrong! You’re wrong!

1. That quotation is referring to gains and profits from business and enterprise, never does it refer to general wages, laboring, livelihood, or any such other thing or likeness as you have wrongfully asserted.
2. The quote clearly states “… gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments …”
3. Merely earning a livelihood is engaging none of: (1) a business, (2) a privilege, nor (3) “employments” within the very obvious context of the included paragraph.
4. Merely earning a livelihood does not, at least in most all instances, realize or bring in any of a ‘gain’ or ‘profit’, but merely sustenance or a livelihood.
5. As to the above quotation, during that entire reference in time the exemption amount was set so far beyond what the general populace could have possibly ever earned within a given tax period that the average day laborer would have never had to of worried or lent any consideration to the federal income tax, whatsoever, and so neither would the Justices have crossed such a notion within their own findings or their thoughts, while having rendered any portion of that quotation. Ergo, your reliance on that quotation renders itself absolutely moot, as the income tax upon the essential livelihoods of the masses was never intended to be its subject that is at least until the Federal Reserve withholding scheme began to root over the entirety of the federal income tax in the 1940’s. There simply could have been no foresight rendered by the Justices to such outright, damning, and coldhearted abuses by embedded progressives through the national taxing powers.

Mr. White, no court in the history of the United States has ever made such a holding regarding the federal income tax. If you think there is such a case, I'd like to see it. The income tax taxes income; it does not tax labor. Under your theory, there is some magical dividing line between the amount of income needed for someone to subsist on and an surplus amount that is presumably subject to taxation. But there isn't anything in the Constitution or the statutes that says that there is such a dividing line or income level. The 16th Amendment means what it says -- income taxes needn't be apportioned, period.

1. Simply that is because the taxing of labor or one’s means of establishing a basis in achieving livelihood is not nor has ever been the appropriate subject of the federal income tax.
2. The federal income tax does not tax “income”, it taxes ‘gross income’; if it were to tax one’s remuneration (i.e., income-capital) that would be no different from taxing that individual’s labor. Congress cannot convolute or end-run its designated powers of taxation (or whatever other powers) to bypass its constitutional constraints. Hence, to impose taxes on the shadow is to impose taxes directly on that shadow’s source; to impose taxes on a tree is to impose taxes directly on that tree’s roots.
3. Also see Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 581 (1895) in quoting from: Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 25 U. S. 444; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449; Dobbins v. Commissioners, 16 Pet. 435; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169; Railroad v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566; Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326; Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 640; and Postal Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 698.
4. I have no “theory” as you assert in feeble desperation, simply a myriad of facts acquired from empirically timeless sources of evidence.
5. Once again, the present concern is not so much about the indirect taxing of ‘incomes’, or about dividing lines, sums, amounts, figures, floors, ceiling, etc., etc., etc. It is more about the still existing requirement for apportionment when directly taxing a person or their labor or livelihood, for such methods of taxation may only be accomplished through personal-capitation taxes, while meeting certain other constitutionally sound criteria. Pointedly, it is wholly improper for the federal government to snatch away $2.3-trillion without yield from its own people who are simply attempting to make a better life for themselves and their families (thereby resulting in the likely forfeiture of over 30% of most everybody’s annual ability); such a system breeds only lifelong agony, dependence, and peonage through and through, moreover, depriving our national posterity.
6. The XVI Amendment does not state that -well, gee, at least now we know who the harebrained author of IRS Pub. 2105 is, yea you, Sonny Jim-laugh; however, it does state the following: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,…” Now most certainly, if congress had meant to directly tax the sources of income -as opposed to what had been derived therefrom- then they would have ratified an earlier version of the Amendment that would have as fact provided them with such power; but hey guess what, they did no such thing.

 

[Weston White]

Mr. White, you've decimated nothing. Your theories have no legal basis at all.

Well to a certain extent, you are correct; being that Evans the esquire and his banal and sophomoric “Tax Protester FAQ” are of no real consequence, entailing a true work of absolute nothingness and to that end there really is nothing for which to decimate. In any event, my arguments are in fact supported by a score of valid evidence, possessing all of the legal basis afforded to such forms of acceptable evidence.

I referred to Mr. Evans's FAQ simply because others visiting this site might want to read about what the law really is. Mr. Evens (by the way, I am not he) is a tax attorney with far more legal experience and knowledge than you will ever have, and his site serves a valuable function by dispelling the various frivolous arguments that tax protestors have come up with from time to time. The arguments have been rejected time and again by the courts, not because the judges are part of some massive conspiracy to hide the "real" law, not because their salaries are paid by the government, not because they are afraid they'll get audited by the IRS, and not for some other paranoid reason, but because the arguments are WRONG.

Say what now! Not a one of you Quatfoolz! are even qualified Masters in Taxation, you are simply a short-order group of nominal JD’, CPA’, and the like all vying for that D.C. power play and hookup. And no, judges do so as to maintain their political funding for continuing their judgeship come voting time or to otherwise maintain backing for their appointment; they do so to get hired into extraordinarily high paying positions with companies such as Monsanto, Halliburton, H&R Block, Turbotax, Roche, Pfizer, Boeing, Bayer, etc., or to be hired by wealthy lobbying groups; they do so to upkeep the expectations of the status quo; they do it in support of the frivolous mantra wrought out of the “New Deal” because revering the socialist-progressive system is what they were taught all throughout their enrollment in academia; they do so as to maintain that $2.3-trillion annual gravy train with fluffy biscuit wheels; they do so as to upkeep the modernized game of the international stock and commodities markets, control commerce and GDP, enable limitless credit and loan debts, support both the federal PPT and the national Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR); they do so to keep one of the most vast pure profit professions increasing their annual revenue potential, i.e., all of the scamming vulture tax law firms located throughout America, ensuring the continuous increase in IRS funding and other such endless and nonsensical bureaucratic expanding, churning the countless private tax return filing firms, paper and ink companies, mailing fees, etc., etc., etc. Those are just some of the key reasons that they really do it.

And if you truly and seriously believe that such was the original intent of the then proposed XVI Amendment, then you are so far past the point of being naivete that you're to the point of being fully inept. Just imagine what would have happened to the process of ratification for the XVI Amendment if during 1909-1913 the federal government went to the several states asking their residents to support this new Constitutional Amendment that will provide the national government (along with the individual states at their own accord) a new taxing power so that they might endlessly tax the private earnings and livelihoods of the entire working class as little as 1% and as much as 100%, to the sole discretion and enjoyment of Congress, all so that imposts could either be greatly decreased or outright eliminated. That Amendment would have been shot down so quickly that it would have never even seen the light of dawn.

And if you actually think that even for a moment, Ron Paul supporters are dumb enough to fall for such tact as spewed all throughout Mr. Evan’s “Tax Protester FAQ”, then perhaps it’s actually true what they say, one cannot fix another’s utter stupidity.

I have read elsewhere on the Internet that you are pursuing a paralegal certificate. Do you honestly think this qualifies you to pontificate on tax law? Do you believe for one minute that you know more about tax law than the law professors and tax attorneys? Can you cite a single scholarly article that supports your arguments? Can you cite an instance where someone suceeded in avoiding taxes by using your theories?

No, not really that so much, but what does qualify me to achieve such “pontification” (as referred to by you) is being a duty bound American citizen that has taken three separate oaths to uphold our Nation’s fundamental principles, and moreover simply being a proactive and patriotic citizen that has been studying federal taxing statutes and regulations on a near fulltime basis for the last several years.

Contrary to your above-insinuated misconceptions, our United States of America is no such aristocracy. Americans are not a people to be ruled over, while having their personal interests dictated and piecemealed by the likes of dukes, barons, knights, esquires, priests, oracles, and such others. And speaking to your earlier mention of “magic”, acquiring a diploma in higher education does not “magically” bestow super-human sorcerer type capabilities to the bearer of such a vastly overpriced and much overvalued fanciful wall-framed degree.

In fact, the reality is that earning a degree in higher education most likely signifies that one has opted to sellout their own imagination, creativity, and individual pride for monetary wealth and professional power by wholly and mindlessly conforming to status quo expectations by permitting oneself to be assimilated into the mindset of the socialist agenda; effecting the continuance of the globally structured progressive “system”. Being a lawyer simply means that you have met the necessary requirements for taking the Bar Exam and once passed, you then meet the necessary legal requirements for representing the valid legal causes of others within the venue(s) where qualified to practice, while being duty bound by the ABA Model Rules and Standards. Ergo, a paralegal can be just as skilled in researching a specific body of law as an attorney can, and even more so; just as a law librarian can and just as any other individual that puts forth an honest effort can. For an individual’s potential is not to be defined by scholarly degrees, as that is a gift to be molded according to one’s own desires, motivations, and personal abilities.

Tossing out the remainder of your smelly red herrings, I already have for this “Points in Support of the CFT” is power-packed full of relevant references and sources: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/download/file.php?id=94

Mr. White, you are a classic example of hubris.

No, this is not a valid assertion at all; you simply misconstrue knowledge, concern, and understanding for hubris. Meanwhile, you appreciate only absolute nothingness and nothing more.

 

[Weston White]

Also to those that are for a bit of reading, here is very interesting work The Memorandum, as crafted by the now rather famous attorney Tommy Cryer:

http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/download/file.php?id=102

 

[Enforcer]

Mr. White, you've decimated nothing. Your theories have no legal basis at all.

I referred to Mr. Evans's FAQ simply because others visiting this site might want to read about what the law really is. Mr. Evens (by the way, I am not he) is a tax attorney with far more legal experience and knowledge than you will ever have, and his site serves a valuable function by dispelling the various frivolous arguments that tax protestors have come up with from time to time. The arguments have been rejected time and again by the courts, not because the judges are part of some massive conspiracy to hide the "real" law, not because their salaries are paid by the government, not because they are afraid they'll get audited by the IRS, and not for some other paranoid reason, but because the arguments are WRONG.

I have read elsewhere on the Internet that you are pursuing a paralegal certificate. Do you honestly think this qualifies you to pontificate on tax law? Do you believe for one minute that you know more about tax law than the law professors and tax attorneys? Can you cite a single scholarly article that supports your arguments? Can you cite an instance where someone suceeded in avoiding taxes by using your theories?

Mr. White, you are a classic example of hubris.

I disagree with your assumptions.

Attorneys are always beholden to the organizations certifying them. For example, the American Bar Association defines the standards (at least in Georgia) that would be lawyers must meet before "practicing" law as an occupation.

Secondly, attorneys are officers of the court FIRST. If something benefits the system, it is their sworn duty to do what is in the best interests of the courts and government agencies. The fact that lawyers that worked enforcing the tax laws (i.e. IRS employees) have come out and disputed the theories YOU espouse are good enough for me to look closer into the facts.

Just because someone holds the paperwork where bureaucrats "recognize" their ability to read and apply the law is not evidence that they can or will do so. Our system operates off of POWER not AUTHORITY. The system may have the POWER to enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the AUTHORITY.

Check this out:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

 

[Sonny Tufts]

the latter lives their life always and forever dependant on credit and loan debt, rents a too small and overpriced apartment, townhouse, or condo, and drives a used domestic car that barely passes its smog test, while wearing clothing from whatever local outlet superstore that offers them the best savings, and considers dinner at Sizzler or IHOP a rare luxury and vacationing at all is but a distant dream.

Such a person pays no income tax under the current Code because of the standard deduction and personal exemptions and would very likely receive money in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. But there's nothing in the Constitution that requires that such be the case. Congress could constitutionally tax his income without regard to the EITC.

Also see:direct tax - “A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax.”
http://www.irs.gov/app/understanding...glossary.jsp#D

indirect tax - “A tax that can be shifted to others, such as business property taxes.”
http://www.irs.gov/app/understanding...glossary.jsp#I


19 CFR § 351.102 [Customs Duties] Definitions.
…
(b) Definitions. (1) Act. “Act” means the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
…
(16) Direct tax. “Direct tax” means a tax on wages, profits, interests, rents, royalties, and all other forms of income, a tax on the ownership of real property, or a social welfare charge.
…
(28) Indirect tax. “Indirect tax” means a sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory, or equipment tax, a border tax, or any other tax other than a direct tax or an import charge.

The IRS website is wrong. The estate tax, for example, can't be shifted, yet it's an excise. Regardless of who ends up with the property, the estate must pay the tax.

The definitions in 19 CFR are restricted to the topic of customs duties and have no bearing whatsoever on income or other taxes.

Congress cannot convolute or end-run its designated powers of taxation (or whatever other powers) to bypass its constitutional constraints. Hence, to impose taxes on the shadow is to impose taxes directly on that shadow’s source

Good grief, don't you know that this Pollock-type analysis is what was specifically rejected by the 16th Amendment?

This is the text of the Amendment:
'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.'

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, -an authority already possessed and never questioned, -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S 1, 17 (1916)

judges do so as to maintain their political funding for continuing their judgeship come voting time or to otherwise maintain backing for their appointment

Mr White, I would suggest you consult a basic text on civics. Federal judges have lifetime appointments and have no need for such things.

Just imagine what would have happened to the process of ratification for the XVI Amendment if during 1909-1913 the federal government went to the several states asking their residents to support this new Constitutional Amendment that will provide the national government (along with the individual states at their own accord) a new taxing power so that they might endlessly tax the private earnings and livelihoods of the entire working class as little as 1% and as much as 100%, to the sole discretion and enjoyment of Congress, all so that imposts could either be greatly decreased or outright eliminated.

As the Brushaber decision pointed out, Congress already had the power to tax private earnings and livelihoods of the entire working class. If you want more, consider:

The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).

a paralegal can be just as skilled in researching a specific body of law as an attorney can, and even more so; just as a law librarian can and just as any other individual that puts forth an honest effort can. For an individual’s potential is not to be defined by scholarly degrees, as that is a gift to be molded according to one’s own desires, motivations, and personal abilities.

No, Mr. White, you are profoundly wrong. Unless you understand the underlying body of law, you will not have the ability to distinguish between holdings and dictum or between cases that have a broad applicability and those that are to be confined to their specific facts. You have already demonstrated this inability in your posts. Good grief, you might as well argue that a nurse can do brain surgery just as well as a physician.

We aren't talking about potential, but by actual ability. I might have the greatest potential in the world for mathematics, but to suggest that with that alone I can solve calculus problems if I've never studied algebra or trigonometry is absurd.

I would put it to you, Mr. White, that the Ron Paul supporters who read this thread are too intelligent to think that you have discovered something in the law that has heretofore escaped the notice of all of the law professors, judges, lawyers, and CPA's; or that all of these people are part of some conspiracy. The plain, unvarnished truth is, Mr. White, that you are 100% wrong.

As far as Mr. Cryer's Memorandum is concerned, one would find better income tax advice in a treatise on 15th Century Bolivian pan flutes. For those who are not familiar with Mr. Cryer, he is currently facing income tax deficiencies, penalties, and interest of almost $2 million. His case is pending in the United States Tax Court, and it is a certainty that he will lose. The only issues are whether he will be sanctioned for making frivolous arguments (which his Memo is full of) and if so, how much.

 

[Danke]

The plain, unvarnished truth is, Mr. White, that you are 100% wrong.

No he is not. I don't agree 100% with him, but I'd say he is 99% correct.

 

[Weston White]

Enforcer, not to state that your thoughts are incorrect, though to solidify your point, our American system of adjudication is adversarial in nature, while one’s attorney has an obligated duty to serve their clients cause with complete impartiality and objectiveness, so being zealously motivated to defend their cause; it is simply that they are limited in their tactfulness and mobility by the rules of the court and the professional expectations as set by the ABA. That is to say that one’s attorney has just as much of a duty to bring forth evidence to the court that is contrary to the position that they represent as they do to bring forth evidence that is favorable to the position that they represent; needless to say, this is obviously something that the Internet attorneys at “Quatlosia!” (et al) disregard entirely.

For example, it would not be entirely accurate to state that a boxer or MMA fighter’s first obligations is to the referee observing their bout, but to themselves, while adhering to the “rules of the ring”; otherwise we end up with situations were overly creative people like Royce Gracie ceaselessly winning bout about prolonged bout.

 

[Weston White]

No he is not. I don't agree 100% with him, but I'd say he is 99% correct.

If I might ask, on which points do you disagree and why? TIA

 

[Wheeljack]

I would put it to you, Mr. White, that the Ron Paul supporters who read this thread are too intelligent to think that you have discovered something in the law that has heretofore escaped the notice of all of the law professors, judges, lawyers, and CPA's; or that all of these people are part of some conspiracy.

Sonny,

I have no problem with Mr. Evans' FAQ.

Let's look at the following cite.

Martin v. Commissioner, 756 F.2d 38, 40 (6th Cir. 1985), aff’g. T.C. Memo. 1983-473.

“Taxpayers’ argument that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax is without merit. There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer’s labors. [Citations omitted] Furthermore, § 61(a) of the Code defines gross income as ‘all income from whatever source derived, including . . . compensation for services.’ In sum, the sixteenth amendment authorizes the imposition of a tax upon income without apportionment among the states, and under the statute, the term ‘income’ includes the compensation a taxpayer receives in return for services rendered. Taxpayers’ argument that wages received for services are not taxable as income is clearly frivolous.”

I wholeheartedly agree with the court because I understand what the court is saying.

Mr. Martin went before the court and made a blanket statement "that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax."

Which meant that if there was only one instance in which this was false, then his statement is without merit. And there is.

When a taxpayer labors for himself (self-employment), there is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on his compensation.

When a taxpayer labors for himself, he is at the same time selling a service or services to someone else. This is the only instance when compensation for labor equals compensation for services.

In most, if not all, the cases where a laborer went to the court it was as pro se. In all the cases where a lawyer, law professor, or CPA might be involved the defendant is usually self-employed or a business which can not use this defense. And that is how this escapes their notice because they have no need to know it.

 

[Weston White]

Such a person pays no income tax under the current Code because of the standard deduction and personal exemptions and would very likely receive money in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. But there's nothing in the Constitution that requires that such be the case. Congress could constitutionally tax his income without regard to the EITC.

Wow, really now, this was your response? What planet do you happen live on because I can tell you right now it’s not planet Earth!

Respectively, that description I had written portrays the life of the average working American family, which by the status quo does in fact pay income taxes (amongst tons of other federal, state, and local taxes) contrary to your disconcerting disconnect on reality.

Also, so as to your response, you stated that (1) such a person would actually owe no income tax and (2) such a person would personally benefit from the individual income tax as they would likely qualify to receive free money that ultimately came out of the pockets of other hardworking people? Should I really be so surprised at your response? …Hmm, now that one is a tuffy -heh.

So I suppose that for individuals like you, the ongoing ACTC (Additional Child Tax Credit) abuse taking place is simply the grand result of our national taxing process coupled with progressivism desires for multicultural merging. See story at: http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...m-to-get-much-bigger-tax-refunds-than-you-are

And no Congress cannot constitutionally tax an individual’s “income” without apportionment, but only their ‘incomes’ -the latter meaning their ‘net income’ (now referred to as ‘gross/taxable income’).

The IRS website is wrong. The estate tax, for example, can't be shifted, yet it's an excise. Regardless of who ends up with the property, the estate must pay the tax.

Yet another real brain-buster of a response, “[t]he IRS [W]ebsite is wrong”! Yuppers, and I suppose we should all just presume that during all these many years that the “wrong” you’re asserting has been intentionally left incorrect, since that “educational” Web-portal had been launched, now several years ago; all to what ends exactly, simply to confuse all of the many, many teachers and students that visit it on a daily basis, is that right? Your assertion is beyond laughable. That is simply your answer to everything, isn’t it; for if it conforms not to your own “Quatloser!” arguments than it most certainly must be wrong, even when the source of that information is the very government that you so feverishly hold in grossly stupefied admiration?

The estate tax is not a tax upon the “estate” itself, but upon the privilege of the government recognizing the transference of the estate, or if you like the benefit of one having received it (26 USC Sec. 2001). Moreover, the estate tax can be avoided by disclaiming it.

By the by, so efficiently elucidated in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47 (1900): “… This view of the inheritance and legacy tax conforms to the official definition of indirect taxes, among which inheritance and legacy taxes are classed, which prevails in France at the present day. The definition is as follows: “Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.”” See also: Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930); and the many arguments made on the matter by Alexander Hamilton, et al.

The definitions in 19 CFR are restricted to the topic of customs duties and have no bearing whatsoever on income or other taxes.

1. Those definitions were included in part within the 1930’ Tariff Act, which does bear on the federal income tax.
2. Congress cannot alter by statutory legalese core definitions of terms already in use, play, or described within our U.S. Constitution; hence, the Legislature cannot use public law to circumvent their breadth of grants and empowerments as afforded to them by their very power to legislate for those fundaments (there are literally dozens of SCOTUS cases addressing this very issue).
3. So according to you: (1) people like me have it wrong; (2) the IRS itself has it wrong; (3) even the Congress has gotten it wrong; and (4) people like you just always get it right. Thereby, according to you 2+2=5, up is down, black is white, direct is indirect, etc., etc., etc.

Gee, have you ever actually stopped to consider the very likely possibly that it is really you that has it wrong?

Good grief, don't you know that this Pollock-type analysis is what was specifically rejected by the 16th Amendment?

Exactly, see this is the precise aspect of ‘direct’ versus ‘indirect’ taxation that your lazy-legal brain fails to comprehend. Simply, there must be an existing source, i.e., a corpus that has borne the ‘incomes’ to be indirectly taxed. For the everyday laborer their basic, essential remuneration is to become -to serve as- that very source and not until that source has itself, derived its own realized gain (or profit) it is wholly outside the prescribed taxing powers of the XVI Amendment.

As to your quotation from Brushaber, the contextual limiter you overlooked, conveniently is: “…from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.”

Mr White, I would suggest you consult a basic text on civics. Federal judges have lifetime appointments and have no need for such things.

Sorry, my error, I was writing generally; however, that was merely one of many other reasons that I had written, and in any case there are scores of more reasons.

As the Brushaber decision pointed out, Congress already had the power to tax private earnings and livelihoods of the entire working class. If you want more, consider: …

The words “personal”, “earning”, “livelihood”, or “working class” cannot be found anywhere within the Brushaber case, ergo, you’re a downright liar.

Moreover, that quotation represents precisely what I have been arguing you dimwitted numbskull. Of course the Congress already had powers to tax “income”, the question is and always has been is apportionment or uniformity required when doing so. As to income-capital apportionment is required, as to ‘incomes’ (notice in the plural), uniformity is required. Quoting: “… But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.”

However, much more enlightening on the subject-matter within Brushaber (240 U.S. 1, 19) it was stated: “… that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.”

By the way, you seem to have forgotten to include the following sentences in that run-on paragraph within your above quotation, which serves to provide it with a nice and just context (really, you “Quatloser!” people seem to do that an awful lot): “… "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. … After full consideration, this Court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. … In determining what constitutes income, substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight. …”

Also more on actually comprehending the Brushaber case can be found at: http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CourtCases/BrushaberVUnionPacRR240US1.htm

No, Mr. White, you are profoundly wrong. Unless you understand the underlying body of law, you will not have the ability to distinguish between holdings and dictum or between cases that have a broad applicability and those that are to be confined to their specific facts. You have already demonstrated this inability in your posts. Good grief, you might as well argue that a nurse can do brain surgery just as well as a physician.

Wow, so I am not only wrong, but am “profoundly” wrong? Goodness me, you act like learning how to perform legal and investigatory research requires the kind of supreme “hands on” training that can only be acquired while attending a recognized university and that it must combined with some sort of rarely inherited personal skill and dedication. Newsflash, picking up on lawyerly basics is actually not all that difficult to achieve; largely entailing vast amounts of reading, memorizing (which essentially develops with passing time as to a respective focus of study), cross-referencing, confirming and validating (e.g., cites, sources, references, and even double-checking as appropriate for thoroughness), writing and editing, performing investigation and background checking, following up, updating, meeting filing and service deadlines, and the like. And are you actually comparing the profession of a lawyer to that of an artisan of the sciences and arts? Good grief, you might as well argue that a physician can develop, invent, or manufacture their own medications, tools, machinery, or procedures to treat the aliments of their suffering patients -the fact remains that attorneys only “practice” their profession from within the confined boundaries of their collegiate teachings just the same as the physician (e.g., the modernized medical profession is not trained, whatsoever, in the viable science of homeopathic remedies only in synthetic, technocratic treatments).

Actually I don’t think that even a physician could legally perform brain surgery as only surgeons are trained in that medical procedure. Regardless, as to your above example, save for the fact that there are laws prohibiting nurses from acting in the capacity of a doctor, could not a nurse (given their own personal confidence in accomplishing such an achievement) in fact learn the proper procedure for performing brain surgery just the same as the surgeon themselves had or is a nurse simply incapable of acquiring such an ability simply for that fact that he/she has been given the label of “nurse”?

In the obverse just because one has graduated from Sorbonne University majoring in the arts does not mean that they are going to become the next Claude Monet, or just because one has graduated from Harvard mastering English literature does not mean they will become the next Poe, Mencken, or King, etc.

The fact is that much of public law is purely subjective and nonessential or outright counterproductive in maintaining social cohesion, serving as benefactor to certain classes of individuals, while reigning disrepute upon all other classes; which is largely why the various forms of government ought not to interfere with the private affairs and arrangements of the masses. Simply put, it is largely uncalled for and completely inappropriate, e.g., crafting ten laws over a specific matter when just one would suffice, thereby ensuring multiple charges will be made against a wrongdoer that had actually committed only a singular act.

At any rate, what you are even talking about? As to you, for example, fail to grasp that the context of a case is “framed” by its pleadings and that one cannot argue by inferring from an inference (inferences are a one-shot deal being essential to drawing a reasonably determinable connection between point-A and point-B). Besides it is your type, who are controverting the present matter using moot cases such as Lucas, Glenshaw Glass, and others. And while orbiter dicta is not binding upon the courts it still has advisory relevance, just the same as the court’s dissenting opinions, and in that way, either can justly influence the course of a case -i.e., that information has been made apart of the “official” public record for a valid purpose and (contrary to your assertion) that purpose was not simply to confuse or throw off the non-attorney.

Regardless, I continuously show you up on point after point, to which you simply go mum and deviate.

We aren't talking about potential, but by actual ability. I might have the greatest potential in the world for mathematics, but to suggest that with that alone I can solve calculus problems if I've never studied algebra or trigonometry is absurd.

Really, an utterly moot point you’re making. As according to you, presuming your hypothetical were the case, no matter how many mathematics books I read on my own (from the local bookstore or library), it would matter not, because simply put, I would never be capable of learning how to complete an algebra or trigonometry problem without first receiving the proper aid of a professor (or teacher if you prefer). For you view the word “study” to only mean that one had been enrolled and has passed a course from an accredited university, as per your delusional mind, one cannot become self-taught or self-learned by reading books written by others highly advanced within their chosen field or profession (not at least to any notion meant to lend any serious consideration); because for you, it is not the individual that holds the “ability” to achieve such feats all on their own, but the accreditation of the university that bestows such gifts unto them through the awarding of their very specialized degrees. Complete bollocks!

I would put it to you, Mr. White, that the Ron Paul supporters who read this thread are too intelligent to think that you have discovered something in the law that has heretofore escaped the notice of all of the law professors, judges, lawyers, and CPA's; or that all of these people are part of some conspiracy. The plain, unvarnished truth is, Mr. White, that you are 100% wrong.

You relentlessly retorting that the THM (myself included) are entirely and completely wrong all because there is no this or that, or him or her, or this title or that title, holds no considerable validity or propriety. The fact is there are many such individuals that are aware of the negligent misapplication of the federal income tax and have come forward (many in fact holding their -then- new found beliefs so strongly that they had willfully forfeited their high paying positions to “go public”); that I am aware of there’s even one such individual (now retired) on this very forum. You however, self-righteously condemn them as being delusional loons, no longer worthy of their past life achievements and thereby discount them from the very social status you wage in question as verification on the matter you debate -oh the irony of it all is near dizzying! The fact remains that there are dozens upon dozens of such specialized individuals located all throughout America and there are dozens upon dozens of such sources of worthwhile evidence available, you simply refuse to accept such damning facts; for to do otherwise would actually bring challenge to your doorway and perhaps true enlightenment to your darkened way of life.

As far as Mr. Cryer's Memorandum is concerned, one would find better income tax advice in a treatise on 15th Century Bolivian pan flutes. For those who are not familiar with Mr. Cryer, he is currently facing income tax deficiencies, penalties, and interest of almost $2 million. His case is pending in the United States Tax Court, and it is a certainty that he will lose. The only issues are whether he will be sanctioned for making frivolous arguments (which his Memo is full of) and if so, how much.

And yet one more response filled throughout with unsubstantiated presumptions on your part, all the while avoiding the true substance of the matter. So was scaremongering the only thing you were actually taught while at Penn?

 

[Weston White]

In most, if not all, the cases where a laborer went to the court it was as pro se. In all the cases where a lawyer, law professor, or CPA might be involved the defendant is usually self-employed or a business which can not use this defense. And that is how this escapes their notice because they have no need to know it.

That is yet another very interesting point, for it is highly convenient to advancing the desires of the national government in burdening and blighting the masses, knowing full well that only a very small percentage would dare step forward (and even less after distraint has been roused) and challenge them, and in doing so will be forced to argument pro per against a vast team of specialized attorneys possessing vast and endless resources (and not to mention “home team” advantage) for afterward the government will then in the future use such (weakly represented) cases only to further embolden and substantiate the continuation of its own greedy causes as if the matters held in debate had somehow become quintessential.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

In all the cases where a lawyer, law professor, or CPA might be involved the defendant is usually self-employed or a business which can not use this defense. And that is how this escapes their notice because they have no need to know it.

What defense? With respect to what is included in gross income, the law has never distinguished between compensation earned through self-employment and that earned by working for someone else.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

that description I had written portrays the life of the average working American family, which by the status quo does in fact pay income taxes (amongst tons of other federal, state, and local taxes) contrary to your disconcerting disconnect on reality.

I suggest you read up on the news. In 2009, 51% of U.S. households paid no income tax. That figure is estimated to be 46% for 2011.

Moreover, the estate tax can be avoided by disclaiming it.

You are confusing an estate tax with an inheritance tax. In the latter case, the tax is imposed on the recipient of the bequest, and he can indeed avoid the tax by disclaiming. An estate tax, however, is imposed on the estate itself and cannot be shifted or avoided.

By the by, so efficiently elucidated in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47 (1900): “… This view of the inheritance and legacy tax conforms to the official definition of indirect taxes, among which inheritance and legacy taxes are classed, which prevails in France at the present day. The definition is as follows: “Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.”” See also: Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930); and the many arguments made on the matter by Alexander Hamilton, et al.

The Knowlton dictum is no longer an accurate description of the law. In 1929 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the gift tax as an excise and in doing so stated "this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned" Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

3. So according to you: (1) people like me have it wrong; (2) the IRS itself has it wrong; (3) even the Congress has gotten it wrong; and (4) people like you just always get it right. Thereby, according to you 2+2=5, up is down, black is white, direct is indirect, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, Mr. White, you are wrong. And others like you who have tried using frivolous arguments to avoid income taxation are wrong, which can be easily demonstrated by a survey of the cases. The IRS is wrong in stating that a direct tax (in the constitutional sense) is one that can't be shifted to others. In fact, that was the precise holding in Knowlton v. Moore (or did you miss that part?). I didn't suggest that Congress has gotten it wrong, or that I'm always right. But all of the cases say that I'm right and you are wrong about the law.

As to income-capital apportionment is required, as to ‘incomes’ (notice in the plural), uniformity is required.

There is no such thing as "income-capital", Mr. White. That is your problem -- you have invented this concept as a rationalization for not paying income tax, but it doesn't work. Income is income, and Congress can tax it without apportionment.

Newsflash, picking up on lawyerly basics is actually not all that difficult to achieve; largely entailing vast amounts of reading, memorizing (which essentially develops with passing time as to a respective focus of study), cross-referencing, confirming and validating (e.g., cites, sources, references, and even double-checking as appropriate for thoroughness), writing and editing, performing investigation and background checking, following up, updating, meeting filing and service deadlines, and the like.

Very good, Mr. White. Pray tell us, in your exhaustive review of scholarly references what tax treatises did you come across that confirmed your position? What authors agreed with you? Which of them said that there's some kind of income earned by an individual that can't constitutionally be taxed? Which said that what one earns for working isn't income? Can you cite them for us? Better yet, have you ever read a tax treatise?

You relentlessly retorting that the THM (myself included) are entirely and completely wrong all because there is no this or that, or him or her, or this title or that title, holds no considerable validity or propriety.

First of all, the term "Tax Honesty Movement" is an oxymoron. There is no honesty in relying on phony quotes (I don't know how many times I've seen tax protestors cite the losing party's brief in Lucas v. Earl and claim it was part of the Court's opinion), overruled cases (e.g., Evans v. Gore), or state court cases that have absolutely no application to federal tax law. Second, the fact that every frivolous argument has been shot down in court should tell you that they are wrong, but in your case it more likely feeds your paranoid delusion that the courts are simply part of a conspiracy of some kind.

You however, self-righteously condemn them as being delusional loons, no longer worthy of their past life achievements and thereby discount them from the very social status you wage in question as verification on the matter you debate -oh the irony of it all is near dizzying!

You are projecting, Mr. White. Such individuals are wrong about the law, but I've never said that whatever else they may have accomplished is unworthy.

The fact remains that there are dozens upon dozens of such specialized individuals located all throughout America and there are dozens upon dozens of such sources of worthwhile evidence available, you simply refuse to accept such damning facts; for to do otherwise would actually bring challenge to your doorway and perhaps true enlightenment to your darkened way of life.

Mr. White, the same can be said of your refusal to accept all of the cases that have rejected the various frivolous arguments tax protesters have put forth.

So was scaremongering the only thing you were actually taught while at Penn?

I didn't go to Penn, Mr. White. What sort of delusion are you experiencing now?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Secondly, attorneys are officers of the court FIRST. If something benefits the system, it is their sworn duty to do what is in the best interests of the courts and government agencies. The fact that lawyers that worked enforcing the tax laws (i.e. IRS employees) have come out and disputed the theories YOU espouse are good enough for me to look closer into the facts.

Oh, please. An attorney representing a private citizen in a tax matter has the duty to use every legal means to eliminate or minimize his client's taxes. The idea that they have a duty to throw their clients under a bus and maximize the Treasury's coffers is nonsense. As far as ex-IRS employees who have swallowed the tax denier koolaid are concerned, you might want to note that some have had their licenses revoked (e.g., Joe Banister) or have been convicted and served jail time (e.g., Sherry Jackson).

Check this out:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

I have. It's so full of lies and misrepresentations about the law, it's pitiful. At least 3 of the so-called experts interviewed in the film are convicted tax cheats.