Why Has Dr. Paul Never Publicly Demanded The IRS To "Show Us The Law?"

[Bman]

Step one: Get people to understand taxation is theft.

Step two: Get people to realize government is force through the barrel of a gun and must be used sparingly, if at all.

Step three: Get them to vote for someone who will shrink government to a size where taxes are not needed.

Step four: Enjoy life.

 

[Gideon]

Because RP is smart enough to know better.

Go ask Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown and Sherry Jackson how well that argument holds up in tax court.

The game is rigged!

 

[Acala]

Wrong

Yes, there's statutory authority for AN income tax, but its not the income tax the IRS would have us all believe. It's due to the very limited nature of INCOME. Income is not "all that comes in" for federal tax purposes because of prohibitions in fundamental, Constitutional law. The statutory income tax does not apply to most Americans. It's all spelled out here.

Income for tax purposes is defined in the code.

"gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, . . "

That means YOUR wages.

 

[Acala]

Uphel

What about the issue with the 5th?

That's what kinda pisses me off.

The fifth is upheld. You do not have to admit any crime in your tax return. If you are involved in criminal activity, you can just write a check, not file a return, and plead the 5th. This has been done.

 

[Danke]

Income for tax purposes is defined in the code.

"gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, . . "

That means YOUR wages.

No, Nationwide is right. You really need to spend time studying the code to understand the terms being used.

 

[Acala]

Really?

No, Nationwide is right. You really need to spend time studying the code to understand the terms being used.

How is it that the definition I just gave you does not say what it says? I'm an attorney. I freaking live in the codes. Show me how that definition of income does not apply.

 

[Danke]

How is it that the definition I just gave you does not say what it says? I'm an attorney. I freaking live in the codes. Show me how that definition of income does not apply.

Well, then look up to whom it applies. If you take the section you quoted at face value, then everyone, even a person in China would be liable for the Income Tax.

"Wages" are defined. And most Americans do not earn "wages."

 

[fsk]

"Is the income tax legal?" is the wrong question.

If a group of thugs with guns say that the income tax is legal, then the income tax is legal.

The correct question is "Is the income tax moral?" The moral argument is a lot more important than the legal argument. "The income tax is immoral!" is obvious. The income tax means that individuals don't own their own labor, making everyone a slave of government parasites.

If you're looking for legal loopholes around the income tax, you're barking up the wrong tree. The correct answer is "All taxation is theft! Government is one big extortion racket!"

Pursing a tax dispute in a State court is pointless. The State is both prosecutor and judge. What do expect a Federal judge to say? "You're right. The income tax as currently implemented is unconstitutional! Thanks for pointing that out. I admit that the IRS has been operating illegitimately for 100 years."

legal != moral

 

[Acala]

cite

Well, then look up to whom it applies. If you take the section you quoted at face value, then everyone, even a person in China would be liable for the Income Tax.

"Wages" are defined. And most Americans do not earn "wages."

Suppose you direct me to the cite?

I just quoted the provision that defines income for tax purposes as, among other things, compensation for services. It is extremely broad. Cite me a provision that says otherwise. Cite me a provision that exempts wages.

 

[anaconda]

Go ask Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown and Sherry Jackson how well that argument holds up in tax court.

The game is rigged!

People on this thread seem to be implying that there are clear laws upholding the income tax. I don't think this is true.

 

[anaconda]

"Is the income tax legal?" is the wrong question.

If a group of thugs with guns say that the income tax is legal, then the income tax is legal.

The correct question is "Is the income tax moral?" The moral argument is a lot more important than the legal argument. "The income tax is immoral!" is obvious. The income tax means that individuals don't own their own labor, making everyone a slave of government parasites.

If you're looking for legal loopholes around the income tax, you're barking up the wrong tree. The correct answer is "All taxation is theft! Government is one big extortion racket!"

Pursing a tax dispute in a State court is pointless. The State is both prosecutor and judge. What do expect a Federal judge to say? "You're right. The income tax as currently implemented is unconstitutional! Thanks for pointing that out. I admit that the IRS has been operating illegitimately for 100 years."

legal != moral

"Legal" would be a nice place for a U.S. Congressman to start with. Especially one who get interviewed frequently.

 

[anaconda]

How is it that the definition I just gave you does not say what it says? I'm an attorney. I freaking live in the codes. Show me how that definition of income does not apply.

Show me the code requiring me to file a 1040 on my wages.

 

[anaconda]

Go ask Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown and Sherry Jackson how well that argument holds up in tax court.

The game is rigged!

I'm not questioning the corruption of the courts here.

 

[Nationwide]

income is not ALL THAT COMES IN

How is it that the definition I just gave you does not say what it says? I'm an attorney. I freaking live in the codes. Show me how that definition of income does not apply.

If the IR code used flurv in a sentence and I told you the definition: "Gross flurv means all flurv from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:"
With all due respect sir, I have not given you a definition of flurv. I've tucked the term defined INTO THE DEFINITION. It's a sleight of hand the IRS hopes people don't notice. Even the tax defenders will admit, the Internal Revenue Code does not define INCOME. For federal tax purposes, most Americans have precious little INCOME. It's a huge scam folks. They hoodwinked us with the Federal Reserve banking cartel scam (you know, to stabilize the economy), do you think they couldn't take a lawful limited Constitutional tax and deceive us all into paying it? Begin your education here: http://losthorizons.com

 

[Matt Collins]

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm

 

[WaltM]

I'm not questioning the corruption of the courts here.

very smart.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Slavery was legal.
Helping escaped slaves was illegal.

Iraq has courts of laws, so does Saudi Arabia, and China as well.

Authority, might, power, persuasion, law, morality, liberty, legal. Hard to define, but those with the most guns do a pretty good job at it.

 

[WaltM]

Slavery was legal.
Helping escaped slaves was illegal.

Iraq has courts of laws, so does Saudi Arabia, and China as well.

Authority, might, power, persuasion, law, morality, liberty, legal. Hard to define, but those with the most guns do a pretty good job at it.

knowing this won't make you happy, but it'll keep you out of prison, that's good enough for me.

 

[Acala]

Hold on

Show me the code requiring me to file a 1040 on my wages.

I never said you were required by statute to file a return. I don't know because I haven't looked. And I don't care because the requirement to file a return is not the same as the requirement to pay the tax. The statute requires you to pay the tax. You might get away without filing a return if you pay the tax, but don't rely on that because I have not done the research.

Actually I think this is where some people get confused - they say "show me the statute that requires a return" and when they don't see one, they claim "no law requiring payment of the tax!!!!" But it ain't the same thing.

 

[Acala]

okay

No, Nationwide is right. You really need to spend time studying the code to understand the terms being used.

Okay. I give up. You win. I don't know how to read the US Code, nor do any of the judges in the country, and when Congress passed the law they really didn't intend for it to be a tax. It was kind of a prank they were playing. They knew that the 16th amendment was invalid so they wrote a tax code that doesn't really impose a tax and they are just hoping smart guys like you will not figure it out. But I see that they failed because you DID figure it out and now the whole scheme is going to be exposed, nobody is going to have to pay their income tax and the judges will all agree and Congress won't try to amend the statute because the 16th amendment has been exposed as a fraud and we will all live happily ever after as the federal government dries up and blows away.