Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
Economic: Taxes: There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country.
- Thread starter Wheeljack
- Start date
ZENemy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 2,897
Thanks, that explained a lot to me but, your "Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!" in your signature made things MUCH clearer for me.
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
Do not follow this foolish advice unless you wish to go to prison. Paying income tax *IS* the law in this country.
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
Jail Bait
by Harry Browne
(Adapted from Fail-Safe Investing)
You may encounter schemes that purport to eliminate all income taxes legally. These plans are based on misguided interpretations of the income tax rules, and they're dangerous.
The theories advanced by their proponents usually include one or more of following contentions:
Congress has never passed a law requiring you to pay taxes;
The 16th Amendment (authorizing an income tax) was never actually ratified;
The Internal Revenue Code applies only to corporations — or it doesn't apply to wages or salaries — or it applies only in U.S. possessions like Guam or the Virgin Islands;
The IRS itself says that paying income tax is voluntary;
A legal obligation to file a return that could incriminate you violates the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
And there are other contentions.
It is beyond the scope of this article to examine all these claims. (However, if you believe there's no law requiring you to pay income tax, click here to see the portions of the law that do require you to pay income tax.)
Here let me make just two points.
People Go to Prison
First, it doesn't matter whether you believe the income tax is "legal." Whether or not it is, many people who don't pay income tax are put in prison.
One of the best-known promoters of these schemes has been in prison three times — each time for tax evasion, and is now facing a possible fourth prison term. During his time in prison, he figures out what was wrong with his plan — and he comes out with a new, safer way of getting around the system. He tries it — and eventually goes back to prison.
Many others who have tried these schemes have paid for it with prison time. If they want to do that to protest the income tax system, that's their privilege. Most of them, however, went to prison because they thought there was a way to evade taxes without danger.
No matter how strong the argument someone makes to claim you don't have to pay income tax, remember that the question isn't: Is the logic correct? The question is: Do people go to prison for following it? And they do. Is that what you want to risk?
Don't Be Fooled by IRS Inattention
Second, the claims usually are accompanied by stories of people who have followed the recommended procedure for years and have never been bothered by the IRS.
If the Internal Revenue Service is aware that you haven't paid your taxes for a year or two, it may send you a notice asking whether you've filed a return that they missed. If you don't answer or you tell the IRS you have no legal obligation to pay, and the IRS stops sending you notices, it isn't because the IRS has given up on you.
Instead, the IRS will identify you as a tax-evader. The next step is to give you enough rope to hang yourself. The IRS wants you to go several years without paying tax for two reasons: (1) to establish that it was part of a pattern of deliberate evasion, rather than an isolated mistake; and (2) to allow the unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest to accumulate to a size that makes it worth prosecuting you. And then it will come after you with a vengeance. The full force of the federal government will be brought to bear to prosecute you, and possibly send you to prison.
Every one of the you-don’t-have-to-pay-income-tax movements started out with "air tight" arguments that supposedly avoided the pitfalls of all the other you-don’t-have-to-pay-income-tax movements — the "mistaken" ones that had sent people to prison. But, eventually, people do go to prison, and I don’t want you to be one of them.
Loopholes Can Be Plugged
I can’t possibly deal with all the specific arguments made by all the different tax protest movements, but consider one simple point that applies to all such claims. If there is some loophole in the income tax code by which the taxing of U.S. income isn’t authorized, why wouldn’t Congress in one of its yearly tax-overhaul bills simply plug that loophole?
The only rebuttal to that question that I’ve heard is that it would be unconstitutional (5th amendment and so on), but 99% of the laws passed by Congress violate the Constitution. Why would they shrink from passing an unconstitutional revenue act? (And, while we're on the subject, why would you think the Supreme Court would uphold the 5th amendment in your case when it has ignored the 5th amendment in so many other cases.)
Only for the Wealthy?
The latest incarnation of the tax-protest movement is the idea that the 16th Amendment was passed by Congress and ratified by the states with the intention of taxing only the wealthiest citizens.
This may or may not have been the original intention, but it's of no importance — because no such limitation was written into the 16th Amendment (authorizing Congress to impose an income tax). Such an unwritten "original intent" is irrelevant in a document like the Constitution, which is written mostly in very plain, straightforward language.
One of the problems today is the desire of conservatives and liberals to want the Supreme Court to read into the Constitution various interpretations — when such phrases as "Congress shall make no law . . ." are plain enough to require no interpretation. Once you go beyond the plain language of the Constitution, you're opening the door to a free-for-all over obscure second and third meanings of words, the intentions of legislators, and who-knows-what-else.
How to Get Rid of the Income Tax
Although I haven't dealt with the details of every tax-evasion scheme here, or even mentioned every one that's promoted by someone, please understand that I've been aware of these plans for at least twenty years, I've investigated many of them, and I've found no value whatsoever in any of them.
And no matter how good you think the latest one is, I'll tell you now that I'm not going to drop what I'm doing to investigate one just because it happened to pop into your email Inbox.
For a more detailed review of various tax-protest plans, click here to read an excellent article by Daniel J. Pilla, who has spent years investigating the claims of no-tax promoters.
It’s very tempting to think you can evade income taxes and get away with it. But you are taking an enormous risk. And I believe it is irresponsible for someone to encourage other people to take that risk when the person doing the encouraging is not going to suffer the consequences.
The drive to prove that no one owes income taxes is not a libertarian cause. It does nothing to show people that government programs hurt, rather than help, America. By trying to focus on legalisms, it does nothing to show that government shouldn't be taxing your income.
We will get rid of the income tax only when we show enough Americans that they will be far better off by reducing government dramatically (including forgoing their own subsidies) so that they can be free entirely of the income and Social Security taxes. That, actually, will be easier to achieve than to convince them that the income tax is illegal. For more about showing Americans how much better off they'd be with smaller government and no income tax, click here or here.
by Harry Browne
(Adapted from Fail-Safe Investing)
You may encounter schemes that purport to eliminate all income taxes legally. These plans are based on misguided interpretations of the income tax rules, and they're dangerous.
The theories advanced by their proponents usually include one or more of following contentions:
Congress has never passed a law requiring you to pay taxes;
The 16th Amendment (authorizing an income tax) was never actually ratified;
The Internal Revenue Code applies only to corporations — or it doesn't apply to wages or salaries — or it applies only in U.S. possessions like Guam or the Virgin Islands;
The IRS itself says that paying income tax is voluntary;
A legal obligation to file a return that could incriminate you violates the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
And there are other contentions.
It is beyond the scope of this article to examine all these claims. (However, if you believe there's no law requiring you to pay income tax, click here to see the portions of the law that do require you to pay income tax.)
Here let me make just two points.
People Go to Prison
First, it doesn't matter whether you believe the income tax is "legal." Whether or not it is, many people who don't pay income tax are put in prison.
One of the best-known promoters of these schemes has been in prison three times — each time for tax evasion, and is now facing a possible fourth prison term. During his time in prison, he figures out what was wrong with his plan — and he comes out with a new, safer way of getting around the system. He tries it — and eventually goes back to prison.
Many others who have tried these schemes have paid for it with prison time. If they want to do that to protest the income tax system, that's their privilege. Most of them, however, went to prison because they thought there was a way to evade taxes without danger.
No matter how strong the argument someone makes to claim you don't have to pay income tax, remember that the question isn't: Is the logic correct? The question is: Do people go to prison for following it? And they do. Is that what you want to risk?
Don't Be Fooled by IRS Inattention
Second, the claims usually are accompanied by stories of people who have followed the recommended procedure for years and have never been bothered by the IRS.
If the Internal Revenue Service is aware that you haven't paid your taxes for a year or two, it may send you a notice asking whether you've filed a return that they missed. If you don't answer or you tell the IRS you have no legal obligation to pay, and the IRS stops sending you notices, it isn't because the IRS has given up on you.
Instead, the IRS will identify you as a tax-evader. The next step is to give you enough rope to hang yourself. The IRS wants you to go several years without paying tax for two reasons: (1) to establish that it was part of a pattern of deliberate evasion, rather than an isolated mistake; and (2) to allow the unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest to accumulate to a size that makes it worth prosecuting you. And then it will come after you with a vengeance. The full force of the federal government will be brought to bear to prosecute you, and possibly send you to prison.
Every one of the you-don’t-have-to-pay-income-tax movements started out with "air tight" arguments that supposedly avoided the pitfalls of all the other you-don’t-have-to-pay-income-tax movements — the "mistaken" ones that had sent people to prison. But, eventually, people do go to prison, and I don’t want you to be one of them.
Loopholes Can Be Plugged
I can’t possibly deal with all the specific arguments made by all the different tax protest movements, but consider one simple point that applies to all such claims. If there is some loophole in the income tax code by which the taxing of U.S. income isn’t authorized, why wouldn’t Congress in one of its yearly tax-overhaul bills simply plug that loophole?
The only rebuttal to that question that I’ve heard is that it would be unconstitutional (5th amendment and so on), but 99% of the laws passed by Congress violate the Constitution. Why would they shrink from passing an unconstitutional revenue act? (And, while we're on the subject, why would you think the Supreme Court would uphold the 5th amendment in your case when it has ignored the 5th amendment in so many other cases.)
Only for the Wealthy?
The latest incarnation of the tax-protest movement is the idea that the 16th Amendment was passed by Congress and ratified by the states with the intention of taxing only the wealthiest citizens.
This may or may not have been the original intention, but it's of no importance — because no such limitation was written into the 16th Amendment (authorizing Congress to impose an income tax). Such an unwritten "original intent" is irrelevant in a document like the Constitution, which is written mostly in very plain, straightforward language.
One of the problems today is the desire of conservatives and liberals to want the Supreme Court to read into the Constitution various interpretations — when such phrases as "Congress shall make no law . . ." are plain enough to require no interpretation. Once you go beyond the plain language of the Constitution, you're opening the door to a free-for-all over obscure second and third meanings of words, the intentions of legislators, and who-knows-what-else.
How to Get Rid of the Income Tax
Although I haven't dealt with the details of every tax-evasion scheme here, or even mentioned every one that's promoted by someone, please understand that I've been aware of these plans for at least twenty years, I've investigated many of them, and I've found no value whatsoever in any of them.
And no matter how good you think the latest one is, I'll tell you now that I'm not going to drop what I'm doing to investigate one just because it happened to pop into your email Inbox.
For a more detailed review of various tax-protest plans, click here to read an excellent article by Daniel J. Pilla, who has spent years investigating the claims of no-tax promoters.
It’s very tempting to think you can evade income taxes and get away with it. But you are taking an enormous risk. And I believe it is irresponsible for someone to encourage other people to take that risk when the person doing the encouraging is not going to suffer the consequences.
The drive to prove that no one owes income taxes is not a libertarian cause. It does nothing to show people that government programs hurt, rather than help, America. By trying to focus on legalisms, it does nothing to show that government shouldn't be taxing your income.
We will get rid of the income tax only when we show enough Americans that they will be far better off by reducing government dramatically (including forgoing their own subsidies) so that they can be free entirely of the income and Social Security taxes. That, actually, will be easier to achieve than to convince them that the income tax is illegal. For more about showing Americans how much better off they'd be with smaller government and no income tax, click here or here.
roho76
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,963
So because the government will throw you in jail if you don't pay, it's law that you have to pay taxes?
Income tax only applies to monies derived from tax payer sources. That's the way the code reads. Supreme Court ruled twice that the 16th added no new powers of taxation. So what is it? What you posted does not show that I, as an individual, have to pay taxes on my wages.
And quite honestly, even if we were required to pay, fuck them. I refuse to pay anything to those thugs, ever. I can't morally justify paying for anymore bombs to blow up children. It's against my religious beliefs.
Income tax only applies to monies derived from tax payer sources. That's the way the code reads. Supreme Court ruled twice that the 16th added no new powers of taxation. So what is it? What you posted does not show that I, as an individual, have to pay taxes on my wages.
And quite honestly, even if we were required to pay, fuck them. I refuse to pay anything to those thugs, ever. I can't morally justify paying for anymore bombs to blow up children. It's against my religious beliefs.
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
That is correct, roho. That is precisely, exactly correct.
I respect and can even applaud such a decision. But everyone should go into such decisions with their eyes wide open. There is no magic loophole that makes such a course risk-free. To the contrary, it is fraught with risk. To accept that risk may be courage. But to believe there is no such risk is to be foolish... or at least misinformed.
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
Vernice B. Kuglin
Background
A pilot for Federal Express.
Court Actions
Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but was acquitted by a federal jury. United States v. Kuglin, No. 03-20111 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Tenn. 8/8/2003). According to newspaper accounts of the trial, jurors found persuasive the defendant’s argument that she attempted to obtain an explanation of the Service’s authority to collect taxes from her but her correspondence went unanswered. See 2003 TNT 155-12 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 155-13 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 158-2 (Aug. 14, 2003).
In the case of Ms. Kuglin, we also know that she did not escape civil liability for the taxes because she was later interviewed on a radio program and admitted that the IRS had garnished her salary to pay the taxes she owed. “American Radio” with Dave Champion (1/31/2004). Eight months later, she entered into a settlement with the IRS in Tax Court in which she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, No. 21743-03, 2004 TNT 177-14 (T.C. 9/1/2004).
On April 30, 2007, the Memphis Daily News reported that a notice of federal tax lien had been filed against her in the amount of $188,025. http://www.memphisdailynews.com/Editorial/StoryDaily.aspx?story=digest&date=4/30/2007
In a case filed by the government in August 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, the United States obtained a judgment against Kuglin regarding over $1.3 million in federal taxes, penalties and interest for years 1996 through 2004. In 2013, the government sold a vacant lot of real estate she had owned in Memphis, Tennessee. See United States v. Vernice B. Kuglin et al., case no. 2:11-cv-02741-SHM-tmp, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis Div.).
Students/Disciples/Associates
In her criminal trial, Ms. Kuglin was defended by Larry Becraft.
Although her name is frequently bandied about by tax protesters, she does not seem to support or have any connection with any ongoing tax protester efforts.
-- http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/vernice-kuglin
Background
A pilot for Federal Express.
Court Actions
Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but was acquitted by a federal jury. United States v. Kuglin, No. 03-20111 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Tenn. 8/8/2003). According to newspaper accounts of the trial, jurors found persuasive the defendant’s argument that she attempted to obtain an explanation of the Service’s authority to collect taxes from her but her correspondence went unanswered. See 2003 TNT 155-12 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 155-13 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 158-2 (Aug. 14, 2003).
In the case of Ms. Kuglin, we also know that she did not escape civil liability for the taxes because she was later interviewed on a radio program and admitted that the IRS had garnished her salary to pay the taxes she owed. “American Radio” with Dave Champion (1/31/2004). Eight months later, she entered into a settlement with the IRS in Tax Court in which she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, No. 21743-03, 2004 TNT 177-14 (T.C. 9/1/2004).
On April 30, 2007, the Memphis Daily News reported that a notice of federal tax lien had been filed against her in the amount of $188,025. http://www.memphisdailynews.com/Editorial/StoryDaily.aspx?story=digest&date=4/30/2007
In a case filed by the government in August 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, the United States obtained a judgment against Kuglin regarding over $1.3 million in federal taxes, penalties and interest for years 1996 through 2004. In 2013, the government sold a vacant lot of real estate she had owned in Memphis, Tennessee. See United States v. Vernice B. Kuglin et al., case no. 2:11-cv-02741-SHM-tmp, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis Div.).
Students/Disciples/Associates
In her criminal trial, Ms. Kuglin was defended by Larry Becraft.
Although her name is frequently bandied about by tax protesters, she does not seem to support or have any connection with any ongoing tax protester efforts.
-- http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/vernice-kuglin
ZENemy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 2,897
Ive seen the IRS steal entire houses with no probable cause and no evidence.
So what law did they produce in court to convict her?
I am not claiming it doesn't exist but just because the mafia throws people in jail, shoots people in the face dont mean there is a law, anywhere. I just wanna see it.
Last edited:
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
They produced lots of laws, and legal arguments explaining the laws.
In the first case, which Vernie anomalously won, the IRS hadn't answered her letters.
Not responding to mail is hardly a smoking gun, much less an air-tight proof of a theory that you should now go base your life on. No, it is par for the course for a large organization, especially a gov't agency, to not answer its mail quickly. So the IRS did not reply to her kooky letters in a prompt and thorough manner. Big deal.
The original jury ruled in her favor, because they felt she had a point. The IRS hadn't answered her, so maybe she in good faith could believe she didn't owe taxes. Good for the jury! Good for Vernie! But subsequent court cases seem to have all gone against her. Which has cost her a lot of money.
This one court victory (followed by total subsequent defeat) is not something to base your life on.
In the first case, which Vernie anomalously won, the IRS hadn't answered her letters.
Not responding to mail is hardly a smoking gun, much less an air-tight proof of a theory that you should now go base your life on. No, it is par for the course for a large organization, especially a gov't agency, to not answer its mail quickly. So the IRS did not reply to her kooky letters in a prompt and thorough manner. Big deal.
The original jury ruled in her favor, because they felt she had a point. The IRS hadn't answered her, so maybe she in good faith could believe she didn't owe taxes. Good for the jury! Good for Vernie! But subsequent court cases seem to have all gone against her. Which has cost her a lot of money.
This one court victory (followed by total subsequent defeat) is not something to base your life on.
ZENemy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 2,897
Never planned on it, assumptions are another thing to avoid.
ZENemy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 2,897
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
And I wasn't saying you, particularly, were. I am just trying to make a general warning and reality-check directed at any people who may be being taken in by the attractive proposition that they may stop paying their income tax without suffering any legal consequences, due to some amazing legal "discoveries" which some guru has made.
But it's not true. These gurus lose their cases on a regular basis. These gurus go to prison on a regular basis. If you do not want to do likewise, you should not follow in their footsteps.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
Well, the very same could be stated about raw milk producers, organic coop/family farms and ranches, and manufacturers of intrinsically valued currency. Does the mere fact that Feds intend to perpetuate damning fear make their otherwise socially just and moral actions anymore “illegal”?
“… we are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end.”
— Justice Felix Frankfurter (Davis v. U. S., 328 U.S. 582, 597, 1946)
Now in its third revision, updates include several pages of added content, an initial bibliography, the legal quick reference guide is now hyperlinked, and its table of contents is now anchored. (And thank you for the nice comment.)
“… we are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end.”
— Justice Felix Frankfurter (Davis v. U. S., 328 U.S. 582, 597, 1946)
Now in its third revision, updates include several pages of added content, an initial bibliography, the legal quick reference guide is now hyperlinked, and its table of contents is now anchored. (And thank you for the nice comment.)
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
The fact that the Feds have made laws making their actions illegal, yes, that makes their actions more illegal! In fact, it makes them completely illegal. That's what it means to live under a system wherein "law" (so-called) is created by fiat legislation. Let me break this down for you simply:
1. Both houses of Congress pass a bill stating XYZ is illegal.
2. The President signs this anti-XYZ bill into law.
3. The relevant agency of the Federal government begins enforcing the law, sending those who do XYZ to prison.
All of the above means that XYZ is now illegal. That's how it happens. It's really not hard to understand. Do you want to go to prison? Start sending the IRS ridiculous letters about how you are no longer going to pay your taxes, because Tax Shami Rama-Rama-Ding-Dong say you don't have to, neener, neener, neener. It's pretty simple.
I am against the IRS, too. Very against. So is Harry Browne. But it really doesn't help our case to be trying to convince the American people of incoherent and incomprehensible and patently ludicrous legal mumbo-jumbo that the income tax really doesn't exist. That does not "strike the root," as it were. Even if it were true it wouldn't. The important thing is to convince the people that the income tax is wrong and evil and stupid must be ended.
Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
I know what you are saying, but many people are having success too. Some post here occasionally. It does boil down to "pick your battles." And this particular one is difficult, no doubt. I have brought up the law here recently and the response to my correcting the poster was I'm a pot smoker that is high. The resistance is great.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
I was being facetious, obviously it is not illegal (and certainly never would it pass constitutional muster to make it illegal) to produce or consume raw milk, grow or consume organic crops, ranch organic livestock, support communities that voluntarily circulates metal backed denominations, or to even refuse participation in “mandatory” vaccination campaigns, etc. Neither is it to illegal to refuse to pay for a misconceived method of taxation that one very likely does not legally owe to begin with, nor had ever been assessed to pay, even if it were otherwise lawfully due.
By the by, “that the income tax really doesn't exist”, is not at all what this thread is about, to any degree.
Similar threads
