It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
GOP introduces Geithner Tax Penalty Waiver Act
page: 17
share:
Oh, you read it right....apparently the GOP has introduced a bill in the House to attempt to stop the privilaged from getting breaks and waivers from
paying tax penalties. The bill goes so far as to say that if anyone who is accused of tax evasion is not made to pay a fine due to station or duty
then no one can be fined. Sneaky and kind of funny. Although realistically this will never make it anywhere, it will be interesting for the 2010
elections to see whom supports, blasts or otherwise ignores this.
Geithner Tax Penalty Waiver Act
Geithner Tax Penalty Waiver Act
Carter says the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates equal penalties for similar offenses, and that the failure of the IRS to assess any penalties against Geithner demands similar penalties for all taxpayers with substantially equivalent cases. “This bill seeks to codify what is now established by the law of precedent,” says Carter. “The Geithner case has established a legal precedent for the determination of penalties by the IRS, and that precedent can be cited in all federal tax courts. The penalty is now set at zero.” “Taxpayers who willfully attempt to evade paying their fair taxes should pay a penalty, or our tax code becomes unenforceable,” says Carter. “This bill is not to reward tax evaders, but to defend the Rule of Law itself. If we as a nation choose not to enforce the law against the politically privileged, then we cannot enforce the law against others without undermining respect for the law itself.”
It's pretty sad that we need a law passed that states no-one is above the law. I thought our form of government already took care of that. Apparently
not though. Unfortunately I'm with you on this I doubt this will go anywhere.
Edited for grammar.
[edit on 2-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]
Edited for grammar.
[edit on 2-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]
I am actually in the middle of a Tax Problem. I was audited and over the last 5 years I owed approximately $200. If you add up all the 5 years it
comes out to that much.
What they did was took the 2 years I owed them and added those up. Came to $1200. Just forgetting about the 3 years they owed me $1000.
Now, with penalties and interest I owe them approximately $15,000.
I have requested a trial in Federal Tax court, sent in my paperwork and stated two different case laws in regards to it, with a stipulation that their were many more arguments to be made.
They sent me a reply that the two case law were already decided and my purpose for requesting the trial was a diversionary and delaying tactic. The lawyer for them never mentioned my other arguments .They requested that I send a response to them to their submission of a grounds for dismissal. My response was to only reply that I felt I needed my day in court and I denied their grounds for dismissal.
It has been 4 months now, still waiting.
This will be added to my arguments. Tax law must be instituted equally upon the citizens. That is part of the constitutional amendment they keep using to affirm the income tax laws.
Thanks for the additional argument.
S&F
This will never pass. Just as nothing that requires are overlords to be instituted into their draconian laws ever pass.
What they did was took the 2 years I owed them and added those up. Came to $1200. Just forgetting about the 3 years they owed me $1000.
Now, with penalties and interest I owe them approximately $15,000.
I have requested a trial in Federal Tax court, sent in my paperwork and stated two different case laws in regards to it, with a stipulation that their were many more arguments to be made.
They sent me a reply that the two case law were already decided and my purpose for requesting the trial was a diversionary and delaying tactic. The lawyer for them never mentioned my other arguments .They requested that I send a response to them to their submission of a grounds for dismissal. My response was to only reply that I felt I needed my day in court and I denied their grounds for dismissal.
It has been 4 months now, still waiting.
This will be added to my arguments. Tax law must be instituted equally upon the citizens. That is part of the constitutional amendment they keep using to affirm the income tax laws.
Thanks for the additional argument.
S&F
This will never pass. Just as nothing that requires are overlords to be instituted into their draconian laws ever pass.
reply to post by endisnighe
That sucks, I would bring up Rangel, Geithner, etc. people up at the court hearing too. Sounds like they are trying to yank your chain around for dismissing the case. They have to give you a trial if you request one, and the specific people I mentioned earlier could be a reason why they are trying to keep it out of court.
That sucks, I would bring up Rangel, Geithner, etc. people up at the court hearing too. Sounds like they are trying to yank your chain around for dismissing the case. They have to give you a trial if you request one, and the specific people I mentioned earlier could be a reason why they are trying to keep it out of court.
reply to post by endisnighe
Wow, I do feel for ya. The more you press the issue the worse thier rhetoric will get, probably ending up with them threatening jail time if you go to court and lose. (Typical tactic-- they did this with my borther in law a while back) He owed about 12k after a competitor across town filed an anonymous complaint that he was taking illegal tax breaks. He wasn't, but they saw a chance to get money. When he got all the way to about a month out from his hearing the IRS sent him one last "reduced offer , $10,500, and then warned him if he lost the case the penalty would be 25,000 plus court and legal fees and they would press for 1 year in jail. Obviously he couldn't take the chance and had to sell his car and his daughter's car to pay.
Wow, I do feel for ya. The more you press the issue the worse thier rhetoric will get, probably ending up with them threatening jail time if you go to court and lose. (Typical tactic-- they did this with my borther in law a while back) He owed about 12k after a competitor across town filed an anonymous complaint that he was taking illegal tax breaks. He wasn't, but they saw a chance to get money. When he got all the way to about a month out from his hearing the IRS sent him one last "reduced offer , $10,500, and then warned him if he lost the case the penalty would be 25,000 plus court and legal fees and they would press for 1 year in jail. Obviously he couldn't take the chance and had to sell his car and his daughter's car to pay.
reply to post by endisnighe
They will come back with a settlement will erase the penalties and fees but no for the years you owed and will have you on a payment option.
My husband and I been there and done that.
Then they will go to your employer raise your holding taxes in case you forget to pay enough taxes the next year.
[edit on 2-12-2009 by marg6043]
They will come back with a settlement will erase the penalties and fees but no for the years you owed and will have you on a payment option.
My husband and I been there and done that.
Then they will go to your employer raise your holding taxes in case you forget to pay enough taxes the next year.
[edit on 2-12-2009 by marg6043]
reply to post by endisnighe
The problem with any tax court, federal or otherwise, is that they are not what is known as an Article III court, meaning they are not courts mandated by Article III of the U.S. Constitution that delegates all judicial matters. A tax court is known as an Article I court because it is a court of an administrative agency created by Congress, or in terms of the states a court of an administrative agency created by the state legislatures. Administrative agencies deal with law differently than Article III courts do and do not hold the same jurisdiction that Article III courts hold.
The importance of this is that a tax court can only work with in the jurisdictional boundaries of which it was set up with. If your arguments exceed their jurisdiction they can not hear them as they have no jurisdiction to do so. When any person enters into a tax court they have granted that court the jurisdiction to decide the matter at hand. What they will always decide is a matter of how much of tax is owed and any subsequent fines due to failure to pay said tax.
In any tax court, you will not be afforded the right to a jury of your peers as you would be in an Article III court if you were forced to defend yourself against charges of a crime or some form of tort law. If you do not have the right to a jury are you truly having your day in court when entering into an agreement to grant a tax court jurisdiction?
That you filed a valid tax return indicates that there is no question that you owe a tax, other wise why would you file a valid tax return? But, most people file a valid tax return because they genuinely believe they are subject to and therefore liable for the tax in question. The tax in question is known as the "Personal Income Tax" is it not? I am assuming this is the tax matter you have brought up. If it is a question of the so called "Personal Income Tax" then there should be some valid questions regarding that tax that are best not brought up in any tax court. Once you are in a tax court the question of liability is moot. You must be liable for the tax in order for a tax court to have any jurisdiction.
The valid questions that arise from the so called "Personal Income Tax" are 1.) What is the subject of the tax? 2.) Is it a direct tax or indirect tax? 3.) Does the tax fall in the category of a capitation tax or a property tax or activities? And finally, 4.) Where specifically in the code have you been made liable for a tax and/or subject to the Internal Revenue Laws?
The Internal Revenue Code is a Byzantine like maze of legislation that is difficult to read and even more difficult to understand. Indeed, because it is so difficult for any person of average intelligence and even difficult for those of superior intellect to understand, it could be argued on that basis alone that one who does not, indeed can not, understand the confusing language within the code, can not be held liable for the tax because of this. However, even if one reads the code and believes they understand it, they would be hard pressed to point to any section of that code, unless they are one who manufactures or imports tobacco or alcohol, where they or most people have been made liable for any tax.
What is the subject of the tax? Is it income? The code seems to say no it is not income but is instead taxable income that a tax has been laid upon. What is the difference between income and taxable income? The code does not, (because it can not) define income but it does define taxable income and once a person discovers the definition of taxable income they are the responsible for finding the definitions to gross income and adjusted gross income which then means they must discover what the definitions for taxpayer and taxable years are.
There is a circumlocution to the definition of taxable income that makes it appear as if the Internal Revenue Code does not want to be understood. Whether or not the Code wants to be understood anyone would be hard pressed to show that they do understand it and the valid questions asked about this tax only seem to agitate tax lawyers and tax accountants and inevitably anyone who is asking these valid questions will be dismissed as a "tax protester" or told that they are bringing up Constitutional arguments that are not relevant.
What is the subject of the so called Personal Income Tax? No question is more valid than this one. Every person has the right to know what the subject of any tax they are being made liable for is. If the so called Personal Income Tax is a direct tax on property then it must be apportioned among the states and the 16th Amendment DID NOT authorize Congress to pass an non apportioned tax not subject to the rule of apportionment. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent courts from viewing a non apportioned tax as a direct tax.
Given that, it would mean that since the Personal Income Tax is not apportioned among the states that it must be an indirect tax upon certain activities. Has the Internal Revenue Code laid a tax upon the activity of earning income? You will not find any section of the code that says so. What then is the subject of the tax? This is the question and it is a question that all people who are expected to believe they have been made liable for any tax should ask.
Good luck with your tax problems.
The problem with any tax court, federal or otherwise, is that they are not what is known as an Article III court, meaning they are not courts mandated by Article III of the U.S. Constitution that delegates all judicial matters. A tax court is known as an Article I court because it is a court of an administrative agency created by Congress, or in terms of the states a court of an administrative agency created by the state legislatures. Administrative agencies deal with law differently than Article III courts do and do not hold the same jurisdiction that Article III courts hold.
The importance of this is that a tax court can only work with in the jurisdictional boundaries of which it was set up with. If your arguments exceed their jurisdiction they can not hear them as they have no jurisdiction to do so. When any person enters into a tax court they have granted that court the jurisdiction to decide the matter at hand. What they will always decide is a matter of how much of tax is owed and any subsequent fines due to failure to pay said tax.
In any tax court, you will not be afforded the right to a jury of your peers as you would be in an Article III court if you were forced to defend yourself against charges of a crime or some form of tort law. If you do not have the right to a jury are you truly having your day in court when entering into an agreement to grant a tax court jurisdiction?
That you filed a valid tax return indicates that there is no question that you owe a tax, other wise why would you file a valid tax return? But, most people file a valid tax return because they genuinely believe they are subject to and therefore liable for the tax in question. The tax in question is known as the "Personal Income Tax" is it not? I am assuming this is the tax matter you have brought up. If it is a question of the so called "Personal Income Tax" then there should be some valid questions regarding that tax that are best not brought up in any tax court. Once you are in a tax court the question of liability is moot. You must be liable for the tax in order for a tax court to have any jurisdiction.
The valid questions that arise from the so called "Personal Income Tax" are 1.) What is the subject of the tax? 2.) Is it a direct tax or indirect tax? 3.) Does the tax fall in the category of a capitation tax or a property tax or activities? And finally, 4.) Where specifically in the code have you been made liable for a tax and/or subject to the Internal Revenue Laws?
The Internal Revenue Code is a Byzantine like maze of legislation that is difficult to read and even more difficult to understand. Indeed, because it is so difficult for any person of average intelligence and even difficult for those of superior intellect to understand, it could be argued on that basis alone that one who does not, indeed can not, understand the confusing language within the code, can not be held liable for the tax because of this. However, even if one reads the code and believes they understand it, they would be hard pressed to point to any section of that code, unless they are one who manufactures or imports tobacco or alcohol, where they or most people have been made liable for any tax.
What is the subject of the tax? Is it income? The code seems to say no it is not income but is instead taxable income that a tax has been laid upon. What is the difference between income and taxable income? The code does not, (because it can not) define income but it does define taxable income and once a person discovers the definition of taxable income they are the responsible for finding the definitions to gross income and adjusted gross income which then means they must discover what the definitions for taxpayer and taxable years are.
There is a circumlocution to the definition of taxable income that makes it appear as if the Internal Revenue Code does not want to be understood. Whether or not the Code wants to be understood anyone would be hard pressed to show that they do understand it and the valid questions asked about this tax only seem to agitate tax lawyers and tax accountants and inevitably anyone who is asking these valid questions will be dismissed as a "tax protester" or told that they are bringing up Constitutional arguments that are not relevant.
What is the subject of the so called Personal Income Tax? No question is more valid than this one. Every person has the right to know what the subject of any tax they are being made liable for is. If the so called Personal Income Tax is a direct tax on property then it must be apportioned among the states and the 16th Amendment DID NOT authorize Congress to pass an non apportioned tax not subject to the rule of apportionment. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent courts from viewing a non apportioned tax as a direct tax.
Given that, it would mean that since the Personal Income Tax is not apportioned among the states that it must be an indirect tax upon certain activities. Has the Internal Revenue Code laid a tax upon the activity of earning income? You will not find any section of the code that says so. What then is the subject of the tax? This is the question and it is a question that all people who are expected to believe they have been made liable for any tax should ask.
Good luck with your tax problems.
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Wow . . .
Good write up. I understood most of it . . . I think
[edit on 12/2/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]
Wow . . .
Good write up. I understood most of it . . . I think
[edit on 12/2/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Yes, one of the items you brought up, Apportionment, I filed with the Federal Tax court. That is one of the items they said has been determined in a previous case.
The second one I brought was the 13th amendment, but I specifically stated that by that amendment, indentured servitude, I cannot be held liable for a continual tax for my life on interest payments incurred by my government's willfull misconduct in monetary matters.
This argument, I thought will be my best bet. They quoted a case, it is in my other HDD, that actually covered the indentured servitude portion, but not the willful misconduct of our current government's attitude on deficits. It was in approximately 1973.
Yes, I have read extensively on the Federal Tax code. My first and only fracking mistake I made was when they sent me a certified package and I actually signed for it.
If I would have just been half awake, I would not have. Once I received the initial papers, I am than under their fracking contract to make a statement or if not, than I am admitting guilt. DAMN.
What I found amazing when reading, this is the only court in the US that you are not afforded a jury. You get a Presidential appointed judge.
Either way, frack em. Will get my day in court, and will fight it. Have been looking for all the possible arguments and will research some of what you have brought up.
One thing you do bring up though, I never filed a return. That maybe my saving grace.
Yes, one of the items you brought up, Apportionment, I filed with the Federal Tax court. That is one of the items they said has been determined in a previous case.
The second one I brought was the 13th amendment, but I specifically stated that by that amendment, indentured servitude, I cannot be held liable for a continual tax for my life on interest payments incurred by my government's willfull misconduct in monetary matters.
This argument, I thought will be my best bet. They quoted a case, it is in my other HDD, that actually covered the indentured servitude portion, but not the willful misconduct of our current government's attitude on deficits. It was in approximately 1973.
Yes, I have read extensively on the Federal Tax code. My first and only fracking mistake I made was when they sent me a certified package and I actually signed for it.
If I would have just been half awake, I would not have. Once I received the initial papers, I am than under their fracking contract to make a statement or if not, than I am admitting guilt. DAMN.
What I found amazing when reading, this is the only court in the US that you are not afforded a jury. You get a Presidential appointed judge.
Either way, frack em. Will get my day in court, and will fight it. Have been looking for all the possible arguments and will research some of what you have brought up.
One thing you do bring up though, I never filed a return. That maybe my saving grace.
reply to post by endisnighe
If you have never filed a tax return then this very well may be your saving grace but not if you voluntarily enter into a tax court to make the arguments you want to make. By entering a tax court you are granting them jurisdiction and tacitly acknowledging liability. It is pointless to grant this tax court jurisdiction in order to then challenge that jurisdiction. The reason the tax court is dismissing your question of apportionment is because they have no jurisdiction to consider it and regardless of what case law they may be referring to that claims the issue has been settled, it should be understood that by dealing with this court you are granting them jurisdiction and in doing so, and since it is a tax court, you are admitting to liability.
Also, by introducing the 13th Amendment as evidence that you are not liable for this tax forces you to prove this. You are better off simply challenging the jurisdiction of the tax collectors and demanding they prove they have jurisdiction. You can not prove and do not have to prove they don't as it is a long held tenet of jurisprudence that one can not prove a negative. Either the tax collectors have lawful jurisdiction over you or they don't. If they do, they should be able to and indeed are required by law once that jurisdiction is challenged to prove they have that jurisdiction. If they can not prove it the only authority they have is to dismiss the case.
I should stop at this moment and make clear that at no point am I offering you or anyone else legal advice nor am I qualified to do so, I am merely discussing this matter and asking questions and speaking to some of those questions with my own understanding of the law. It is another long held tenet of jurisprudence that all of us are presumed to know the law and in order to know the law discussions such as these can be helpful, but I must make clear that I am not advising you or anyone else to evade taxes or defy the law. If one has been made liable for a tax then they should pay it, to this there should be no question. My question remains, what part of the Internal Revenue Code has made the vast majority of people in the United States liable for a tax?
That disclaimer out of the way, let me now return to this discussion of your struggle. Yet another long held tenet of American jurisprudence is that you are not required to prove your innocence and the burden of proof is incumbent upon the party bringing charges against you. It is their responsibility to prove your guilt not your responsibility to prove your innocence. When you make such arguments as the apportionment issue or offer as evidence your innocence due to the nature of the 13th Amendment you are effectively shifting the burden from them to you. This does not appear to be a sound legal strategy.
I can't stress enough what a mistake it would be to presume or assume that simply reading the tax code means you understand it. Consider Albert Einsteins assessment of that Code:
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
Here is another quote by Einstein:
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
When you make assertions you are not making anything simple but only complicating the circumstances. Just as it may be a saving grace that you never filed and why that is would be because you never signed under penalty of perjury that "all of the above is true and correct" which makes it much harder for your prosecutors to allege perjury in this matter, it seems to me another saving grace would be to rely upon genuine confusion regarding the Code, not attempting to show you understand it.
If any assertion should be made at all it would be the assertion that it is dubious that anyone understands the Income portion of the Internal Revenue Code and then let those who claim to understand it prove it. The apportionment question can only help you when it is being framed in terms of questions, do not make assertions claiming that an income tax is a direct tax and subject to the rule of apportionment because Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation and can impose a non apportioned tax without apportionment. Such a tax, however would be an indirect tax not levied on income but income would serve as a tool to measure how much tax is owed.
The 16th Amendment made clear that Congress has every right to levy a non apportioned tax and the Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment time and time again but particularly, and this should be required reading for you, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. both rulings made in 1916 in regards to Constitutional challenges made of the 16th Amendment. It is imperative you come to know these two rulings intimately in your quest of challenging jurisdiction because tax courts and tax collectors have been known to use these very same rulings to assert that the 16th Amendment authorized a non apportioned direct tax but neither ruling ever made such a claim and made clear that if Congress had attempted to do so that the 16th Amendment would have to necessarily be struck down.
What both Brushaber and Stanton explain is first the history of why the 16th Amendment was passed, which includes another seminal SCOTUS ruling known as Pollack v. Farmer Loan & Trust Co., that struck down the entire income portion of a revenue act as unconstitutional because it was viewed as a direct tax without any apportionment, then Chief Justice White of both the Brushaber and Stanton rulings explains why the 16th Amendment is wholly harmonious with the Constitution because instead of authorizing a tax without apportionment what it does is prohibit any court from viewing a non apportioned income tax as anything other than an indirect tax.
Again, it is not wise to learn this information and then charge into a court of law, even a kangaroo court such as the tax courts and begin making assertions. It is better to employ the very same tactics they will no doubt employ against you, which is to set traps for you and you should avoid those traps and set your own. Let them answer your questions, if they answer incorrectly do not tell them they have answered incorrectly but ask those pertinent questions that will reveal their incorrectness.
Continued...
If you have never filed a tax return then this very well may be your saving grace but not if you voluntarily enter into a tax court to make the arguments you want to make. By entering a tax court you are granting them jurisdiction and tacitly acknowledging liability. It is pointless to grant this tax court jurisdiction in order to then challenge that jurisdiction. The reason the tax court is dismissing your question of apportionment is because they have no jurisdiction to consider it and regardless of what case law they may be referring to that claims the issue has been settled, it should be understood that by dealing with this court you are granting them jurisdiction and in doing so, and since it is a tax court, you are admitting to liability.
Also, by introducing the 13th Amendment as evidence that you are not liable for this tax forces you to prove this. You are better off simply challenging the jurisdiction of the tax collectors and demanding they prove they have jurisdiction. You can not prove and do not have to prove they don't as it is a long held tenet of jurisprudence that one can not prove a negative. Either the tax collectors have lawful jurisdiction over you or they don't. If they do, they should be able to and indeed are required by law once that jurisdiction is challenged to prove they have that jurisdiction. If they can not prove it the only authority they have is to dismiss the case.
I should stop at this moment and make clear that at no point am I offering you or anyone else legal advice nor am I qualified to do so, I am merely discussing this matter and asking questions and speaking to some of those questions with my own understanding of the law. It is another long held tenet of jurisprudence that all of us are presumed to know the law and in order to know the law discussions such as these can be helpful, but I must make clear that I am not advising you or anyone else to evade taxes or defy the law. If one has been made liable for a tax then they should pay it, to this there should be no question. My question remains, what part of the Internal Revenue Code has made the vast majority of people in the United States liable for a tax?
That disclaimer out of the way, let me now return to this discussion of your struggle. Yet another long held tenet of American jurisprudence is that you are not required to prove your innocence and the burden of proof is incumbent upon the party bringing charges against you. It is their responsibility to prove your guilt not your responsibility to prove your innocence. When you make such arguments as the apportionment issue or offer as evidence your innocence due to the nature of the 13th Amendment you are effectively shifting the burden from them to you. This does not appear to be a sound legal strategy.
I can't stress enough what a mistake it would be to presume or assume that simply reading the tax code means you understand it. Consider Albert Einsteins assessment of that Code:
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
Here is another quote by Einstein:
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
When you make assertions you are not making anything simple but only complicating the circumstances. Just as it may be a saving grace that you never filed and why that is would be because you never signed under penalty of perjury that "all of the above is true and correct" which makes it much harder for your prosecutors to allege perjury in this matter, it seems to me another saving grace would be to rely upon genuine confusion regarding the Code, not attempting to show you understand it.
If any assertion should be made at all it would be the assertion that it is dubious that anyone understands the Income portion of the Internal Revenue Code and then let those who claim to understand it prove it. The apportionment question can only help you when it is being framed in terms of questions, do not make assertions claiming that an income tax is a direct tax and subject to the rule of apportionment because Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation and can impose a non apportioned tax without apportionment. Such a tax, however would be an indirect tax not levied on income but income would serve as a tool to measure how much tax is owed.
The 16th Amendment made clear that Congress has every right to levy a non apportioned tax and the Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment time and time again but particularly, and this should be required reading for you, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. both rulings made in 1916 in regards to Constitutional challenges made of the 16th Amendment. It is imperative you come to know these two rulings intimately in your quest of challenging jurisdiction because tax courts and tax collectors have been known to use these very same rulings to assert that the 16th Amendment authorized a non apportioned direct tax but neither ruling ever made such a claim and made clear that if Congress had attempted to do so that the 16th Amendment would have to necessarily be struck down.
What both Brushaber and Stanton explain is first the history of why the 16th Amendment was passed, which includes another seminal SCOTUS ruling known as Pollack v. Farmer Loan & Trust Co., that struck down the entire income portion of a revenue act as unconstitutional because it was viewed as a direct tax without any apportionment, then Chief Justice White of both the Brushaber and Stanton rulings explains why the 16th Amendment is wholly harmonious with the Constitution because instead of authorizing a tax without apportionment what it does is prohibit any court from viewing a non apportioned income tax as anything other than an indirect tax.
Again, it is not wise to learn this information and then charge into a court of law, even a kangaroo court such as the tax courts and begin making assertions. It is better to employ the very same tactics they will no doubt employ against you, which is to set traps for you and you should avoid those traps and set your own. Let them answer your questions, if they answer incorrectly do not tell them they have answered incorrectly but ask those pertinent questions that will reveal their incorrectness.
Continued...
reply to post by endisnighe
Continuing...
It is important to understand that you are not having your day in court to make anybody wrong or to be disrespectful, (not that I am saying or even implying that this is your intention), and if you have somehow found yourself in the trap of having to appear before an administrative tax court, avoid the trap of making any assertions and respectfully ask the court to prove it has jurisdiction over you. If they claim their jurisdiction comes from your own voluntary signature or signatures then revoke them as a matter of public record then and there. It is also important to make sure that a court stenographer is present at all times.
This is not advice I am offering but an understanding of the law as I've come to know it. Since I am presumed to know the law and since you are as well it is prudent we have these discussions to better understand the law. As I understand the law it is always better to let the burden of proof lie with the other party than to take it upon yourself. In this matter challenging jurisdiction means you are not making a plea of guilty or innocent and can not plea until you understand how it is the tax court came to have jurisdiction over you. Once you are in the evidentiary portion of the trial the facts of the case are no longer a question and it is the evidence that will be considered.
It is, in my opinion, best to avoid making any plea at all at any point and relying on the fact that the Code can not be understood. How can one possibly plea either not guilty or even guilty to a law they can't understand? Your own argument regarding the 13th Amendment should reveal how little about this law you do understand, and I do not mean that as any offense. The Internal Revenue Service and SCOTUS has on a number of occasions stressed that the income tax is based upon a voluntary assessment and based on that understanding it renders your 13th Amendment argument moot. That, however, leads to yet another very pertinent and valid question. Who assessed your liability? It would be in your best interest, it seems to me, to come to know who has the legal authority to assess your tax liability.
There is so much to understand regarding this so called "Personal Income Tax" and it is a daunting task to say the least. This is why there are so many people making money as tax attorneys and tax accountants. Your earnest struggles against this system is heroic and to be commended but beware the traps that have long been set for you and people like you. Avoid the traps and most importantly avoid the biggest trap of all which would be hubris. The tragic hero is the hero who was felled by his own hubris. You may be presumed to know the law but this does not mean you are required to understand a statute or code that is laden with an excess of verbiage and definitions that engage in circumlocution. Let the law work for you and not against you as all law should be.
How exactly you accomplish this, I wish I knew. I wish I could offer you a sound legal strategy to work with but all I can do is continue to discuss this with you for as long as you are willing in hopes that together we might discover the best way for you to extricate yourself from this scenario. If you are liable for this tax then you are necessarily subject to the Internal Revenue Laws in question. I know of nothing that has made you subject to nor liable for any tax. If you have that same knowledge of not knowing then rely upon that to find the truth as it is a truism that the truth will set you free.
Continuing...
It is important to understand that you are not having your day in court to make anybody wrong or to be disrespectful, (not that I am saying or even implying that this is your intention), and if you have somehow found yourself in the trap of having to appear before an administrative tax court, avoid the trap of making any assertions and respectfully ask the court to prove it has jurisdiction over you. If they claim their jurisdiction comes from your own voluntary signature or signatures then revoke them as a matter of public record then and there. It is also important to make sure that a court stenographer is present at all times.
This is not advice I am offering but an understanding of the law as I've come to know it. Since I am presumed to know the law and since you are as well it is prudent we have these discussions to better understand the law. As I understand the law it is always better to let the burden of proof lie with the other party than to take it upon yourself. In this matter challenging jurisdiction means you are not making a plea of guilty or innocent and can not plea until you understand how it is the tax court came to have jurisdiction over you. Once you are in the evidentiary portion of the trial the facts of the case are no longer a question and it is the evidence that will be considered.
It is, in my opinion, best to avoid making any plea at all at any point and relying on the fact that the Code can not be understood. How can one possibly plea either not guilty or even guilty to a law they can't understand? Your own argument regarding the 13th Amendment should reveal how little about this law you do understand, and I do not mean that as any offense. The Internal Revenue Service and SCOTUS has on a number of occasions stressed that the income tax is based upon a voluntary assessment and based on that understanding it renders your 13th Amendment argument moot. That, however, leads to yet another very pertinent and valid question. Who assessed your liability? It would be in your best interest, it seems to me, to come to know who has the legal authority to assess your tax liability.
There is so much to understand regarding this so called "Personal Income Tax" and it is a daunting task to say the least. This is why there are so many people making money as tax attorneys and tax accountants. Your earnest struggles against this system is heroic and to be commended but beware the traps that have long been set for you and people like you. Avoid the traps and most importantly avoid the biggest trap of all which would be hubris. The tragic hero is the hero who was felled by his own hubris. You may be presumed to know the law but this does not mean you are required to understand a statute or code that is laden with an excess of verbiage and definitions that engage in circumlocution. Let the law work for you and not against you as all law should be.
How exactly you accomplish this, I wish I knew. I wish I could offer you a sound legal strategy to work with but all I can do is continue to discuss this with you for as long as you are willing in hopes that together we might discover the best way for you to extricate yourself from this scenario. If you are liable for this tax then you are necessarily subject to the Internal Revenue Laws in question. I know of nothing that has made you subject to nor liable for any tax. If you have that same knowledge of not knowing then rely upon that to find the truth as it is a truism that the truth will set you free.
reply to post by djvexd
Thanks for threading this, an excellent find. Geithner had both the brains and the money to beat any taxes and yet did not. Why? Perhaps I have overestimated his "brains". Is this, overdue taxes, what the invisible government holds over him in his very critical new position? How many have been audited or otherwise sidetracked at opportune moments in history? For instance the solicitation charges against Eliot Spitzer arrived just in time to keep him from making waves for Wall Street. People in high profile government positions rarely get there without a leash. That Geithner's is tied to tax evasion must be a hoot in the inner circle.
Thanks for threading this, an excellent find. Geithner had both the brains and the money to beat any taxes and yet did not. Why? Perhaps I have overestimated his "brains". Is this, overdue taxes, what the invisible government holds over him in his very critical new position? How many have been audited or otherwise sidetracked at opportune moments in history? For instance the solicitation charges against Eliot Spitzer arrived just in time to keep him from making waves for Wall Street. People in high profile government positions rarely get there without a leash. That Geithner's is tied to tax evasion must be a hoot in the inner circle.
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What would be the proper steps someone should take to recind everything they signed after filing returns but has not paid any money claiming to be owed on those returns?
Is it best to always avoid signing for anthing sent certified mail?
This is a great topic. Lets keep it going.
What would be the proper steps someone should take to recind everything they signed after filing returns but has not paid any money claiming to be owed on those returns?
Is it best to always avoid signing for anthing sent certified mail?
This is a great topic. Lets keep it going.
Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What would be the proper steps someone should take to recind everything they signed after filing returns but has not paid any money claiming to be owed on those returns?
Is it best to always avoid signing for anthing sent certified mail?
This is a great topic. Lets keep it going.
There is no easy answer to your question and I can't stress enough that I am not qualified to give legal advice on any matter let alone one regarding the complex and overwhelming nature of the Internal Revenue Code. What I can do is ask pertinent questions to your questions in hopes of putting you on a track that might help you better come to understand the law in general and more specifically the laws of taxation.
The first and most important question that must be asked is why it is you think you should rescind or revoke the signatures on the valid tax returns you filed? If you filed a valid tax return that means you are liable for a tax and if so then necessarily subject to the Internal Revenue Laws. If you are not liable for any tax and not subject to any revenue laws that would require you to file a valid tax return, then why did you do so? I am not asking this question to make you wrong or to fluster you, I am asking you this question because you did file a valid tax return and that, along with you signature, swearing under penalty of perjury that all that you signed for on that valid tax return is true and correct, including the very important fact that you filed a valid tax return. Do you understand?
It is extremely important for everyone to understand that when dealing with matters of the law, it is expected of you to do your due diligence in knowing the law. Your signature on any contract is your sacred oath and promise that you will abide by the conditions of that contract. A very important consideration in these matters is the law of estoppel. Estoppel is intended to protect all parties in the matter of contract, but I must stress that it would be foolish to think that tax collectors have not done their due diligence when it comes to assessing your tax liability.
Who then, assessed your tax liability? By filing a valid tax return it serves as prima facie evidence that you yourself assessed that tax liability, otherwise why would you have filed a valid tax return? Why would someone not liable for a tax assess their own liability for that tax and then take it one step further and file a valid tax return? Are you beginning to understand the problem? As best I understand the law of estoppel, it prevents you from making a claim at a later date that counters the claim you all ready made when you signed under penalty of perjury that all of the above was true and correct when you filed your valid tax return. The tax collection agency has every reason to believe you are liable for and/or subject to the laws that give them jurisdiction because you signed these valid tax returns. You stated then a certain number of facts and you can't turn around now and claim those facts were not true.
The law of estoppel is not a simple and easy law to understand in and of itself and you and anyone else reading this and considering how they might extricate themselves from the trap they voluntarily entered into to begin with should do their due diligence in coming to understand this law. It should be noted that there are several instances of case law, and especially noted that on several occasions in several ways, the Internal Revenue Service has gone out of their way to make clear that income taxation is based upon voluntary self assessment.
You will find the Supreme Court has said this in Flora v. United States 362 U.S. 145 @ p. 176 (1960), and you will not have much trouble finding instances where the IRS makes the same claim. Of course, they will also follow such claims with wording that can easily be interpreted as a clarification that what they mean by this is that they rely upon people to openly and honestly report their income earnings voluntarily but, if they are reporting that income they are then filing a valid tax return and if they are doing so because it is mandatory then there is nothing voluntary about it. Do you understand?
It is probably in the best interest of anyone who has voluntarily filed a valid tax return to then abide by the terms of the agreement that person made. If that means you agreed to pay a certain amount of taxes then you should take your lumps and pay the tax, as your the one who voluntarily assessed your own liability and filed that valid tax return. Now, there is of course, the very real possibility that you filed that valid tax return based upon a reasonable presumption that you were liable due to fraudulent claims, mistakes of fact, misinterpretation of law, and possibly even coercion. Whether this is true or not, I can not know only you can know this and the only possible way you can know this is by coming to understand thoroughly the laws of Constitutional taxation and to a large degree the Internal Revenue Code itself.
Here is the greater problem with knowing the Internal Revenue Code, I honestly believe, based on its excess of verbiage and circumlocution of definitions, that it can't be properly understood. If it is indeed true that the IRC can not be properly understood then how can anyone possibly come to know those codes? Do you see the dilemma? Because you filed a valid tax return you have given the tax collection agency that expects you to pay the tax in question proper jurisdiction to collect that tax. Revoking or rescinding your signature after the fact is not going to help you much unless you can effectively prove that you were a victim of fraud, misinterpretation of law, mistake of fact, and/or coercion. Can you prove this?
In order to prove such a thing you would have to first prove that you are not at all liable for the tax and/or subject to the Internal Revenue Laws in question. How do you expect to prove such a thing? You would be attempting to prove a negative in that you would be forced to prove a non-liability, which then only counters the claim you made when you signed under penalty of perjury a valid tax return.
Continued...
reply to post by FollowTheConstitution
Continuing...
The complexities involved in understanding the Internal Revenue Code and somehow finding a way to extricate oneself from the trap they voluntarily entered to begin with are overwhelming and seemingly insurmountable. Asking how one can get out of a contract they made with the Internal Revenue Service is like asking how one can get out of the flu virus they caught. There is no way out of it and the only way to get passed it is to survive it. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be like joining a gang. How does one get out or "jump out" of the gang they voluntarily joined? Some of these gang memberships come with a lifetime membership and admission is free you pay to get out.
If you or anyone reading this, comes to understand that they are not, nor have they ever been made liable for a tax, (with the possible exception of their own voluntary self assessment), and therefore are not in any way subject to the so called "Personal Income Tax Laws", then the question becomes how do they prove such a thing? It is infinitely easier to let the other party prove you are liable for a tax and/or subject to the law in question than you proving that you are not. However, in order to ensure that the other party prove you are liable for a tax and/or subject to the law in question, you must necessarily challenge the jurisdiction to begin with. Actually, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, but when dealing with the very crafty and brilliant lawyers of tax collection agencies, it is not at all prudent to wait until after you have entered into their territory, i.e. an IRS office, a tax court, or even a court of criminal law, without having first challenged the jurisdiction.
Now, why would you or anybody reading this, challenge the jurisdiction to the IRS or any other tax collection agency collecting "Personal Income Tax"?
Certainly, if you have filed a valid tax return and the tax in question is in regards to the valid tax return you have filed, challenging the jurisdiction becomes infinitely harder than if you hadn't filed a valid tax return to begin with. Even if you haven't filed a valid tax return, challenging the jurisdiction can be, if you'll pardon the repetitive language, challenging to say the least. It is unlikely that any tax collection agency will take your challenges of jurisdiction seriously and will do their level best to encourage you to make certain statements of fact or assertions that will only serve to undermine your challenges of jurisdiction.
There are numerous people who did their due diligence and studied the Internal Revenue Code thoroughly and ardently in prison today because they could not resist the irresistible temptation to assert what they "knew". Knowing the law and knowing the tax codes are two different things and knowing the law is infinitely more important than knowing the tax code. If a person is not liable for this so called "Personal Income Tax" then why should they be expected to know the codes that impose, collect and punish those who evade collection? If a person is not subject to this so called "Personal Income Tax Law" then why should they be expected to know it?
The vast majority of these numerous people now in prison for some form of tax evasion, which usually translates to a conviction of perjury, are where they are because they made assertions they couldn't prove and very few of them ever bothered to effectively challenge the jurisdiction at any point, let alone do so from the very beginning. It should be noted, however, that a simple challenge of jurisdiction is not a magic utterance that makes the evil demons vanish. Youtube is strewn with videos of people who insist that a judge or law enforcement officer has no jurisdiction then are dumbfounded when their assertions are roundly ignored and the process of law enforcement and adjudication goes on in spite of their assertions.
Challenging jurisdiction is not an assertion it is a reasonable demand that the party claiming authority prove they have it. If you have filed a valid tax return the question of jurisdiction is answered with that valid tax return. If you have not, however, filed a valid tax return and a tax collector comes knocking on your door or sending some official letter of collection by certified mail or otherwise, then the question of jurisdiction becomes a little more pertinent. That tax collection agency must show by some other credible evidence that you are indeed liable for a tax and/or subject to the tax laws in question.
If that tax collection agency responds to your challenge of jurisdiction by pointing to sections within the Internal Revenue Code it is not at all wise to begin informing these tax collectors what you have learned about this Code. Engaging with in a spitting match with people trained to spit further and better than you is just not a good idea. Let them do the spitting and you do your best to dodge that spittle by asking the correct questions. As I have stated before the first and most important questions that must be asked are: what is the subject of the tax? Is it People, Property or Activities and where specifically in the Code has a tax been laid upon that subject?
It should be noted that there are certain and very specific Activities listed by the Internal Revenue Code, where a tax has been laid upon that subject. It is best, if it is your intention, whoever you might be, to find out for yourself what those certain and very specific activities are. There is no point in me just telling you what those activities are, and here is why, because the information I type here today is not in anyway reliable in a court of law as legal advice, or interpretation of law. You can not tell the tax collectors insisting you are liable for a tax that your not because I said so. That won't work at all!
Even if something like that could work, it wouldn't help you or anyone else if you or they did not know where in the Code these specific activities were and what they pertained to. The same goes with case law. It is not enough for you or anyone else to utter the mystical incantation Flora v. United States 362 U.S. 145 (1960). If you do not know this Case inside and out and especially if you do not understand that...
Continued...
Continuing...
The complexities involved in understanding the Internal Revenue Code and somehow finding a way to extricate oneself from the trap they voluntarily entered to begin with are overwhelming and seemingly insurmountable. Asking how one can get out of a contract they made with the Internal Revenue Service is like asking how one can get out of the flu virus they caught. There is no way out of it and the only way to get passed it is to survive it. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be like joining a gang. How does one get out or "jump out" of the gang they voluntarily joined? Some of these gang memberships come with a lifetime membership and admission is free you pay to get out.
If you or anyone reading this, comes to understand that they are not, nor have they ever been made liable for a tax, (with the possible exception of their own voluntary self assessment), and therefore are not in any way subject to the so called "Personal Income Tax Laws", then the question becomes how do they prove such a thing? It is infinitely easier to let the other party prove you are liable for a tax and/or subject to the law in question than you proving that you are not. However, in order to ensure that the other party prove you are liable for a tax and/or subject to the law in question, you must necessarily challenge the jurisdiction to begin with. Actually, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, but when dealing with the very crafty and brilliant lawyers of tax collection agencies, it is not at all prudent to wait until after you have entered into their territory, i.e. an IRS office, a tax court, or even a court of criminal law, without having first challenged the jurisdiction.
Now, why would you or anybody reading this, challenge the jurisdiction to the IRS or any other tax collection agency collecting "Personal Income Tax"?
Certainly, if you have filed a valid tax return and the tax in question is in regards to the valid tax return you have filed, challenging the jurisdiction becomes infinitely harder than if you hadn't filed a valid tax return to begin with. Even if you haven't filed a valid tax return, challenging the jurisdiction can be, if you'll pardon the repetitive language, challenging to say the least. It is unlikely that any tax collection agency will take your challenges of jurisdiction seriously and will do their level best to encourage you to make certain statements of fact or assertions that will only serve to undermine your challenges of jurisdiction.
There are numerous people who did their due diligence and studied the Internal Revenue Code thoroughly and ardently in prison today because they could not resist the irresistible temptation to assert what they "knew". Knowing the law and knowing the tax codes are two different things and knowing the law is infinitely more important than knowing the tax code. If a person is not liable for this so called "Personal Income Tax" then why should they be expected to know the codes that impose, collect and punish those who evade collection? If a person is not subject to this so called "Personal Income Tax Law" then why should they be expected to know it?
The vast majority of these numerous people now in prison for some form of tax evasion, which usually translates to a conviction of perjury, are where they are because they made assertions they couldn't prove and very few of them ever bothered to effectively challenge the jurisdiction at any point, let alone do so from the very beginning. It should be noted, however, that a simple challenge of jurisdiction is not a magic utterance that makes the evil demons vanish. Youtube is strewn with videos of people who insist that a judge or law enforcement officer has no jurisdiction then are dumbfounded when their assertions are roundly ignored and the process of law enforcement and adjudication goes on in spite of their assertions.
Challenging jurisdiction is not an assertion it is a reasonable demand that the party claiming authority prove they have it. If you have filed a valid tax return the question of jurisdiction is answered with that valid tax return. If you have not, however, filed a valid tax return and a tax collector comes knocking on your door or sending some official letter of collection by certified mail or otherwise, then the question of jurisdiction becomes a little more pertinent. That tax collection agency must show by some other credible evidence that you are indeed liable for a tax and/or subject to the tax laws in question.
If that tax collection agency responds to your challenge of jurisdiction by pointing to sections within the Internal Revenue Code it is not at all wise to begin informing these tax collectors what you have learned about this Code. Engaging with in a spitting match with people trained to spit further and better than you is just not a good idea. Let them do the spitting and you do your best to dodge that spittle by asking the correct questions. As I have stated before the first and most important questions that must be asked are: what is the subject of the tax? Is it People, Property or Activities and where specifically in the Code has a tax been laid upon that subject?
It should be noted that there are certain and very specific Activities listed by the Internal Revenue Code, where a tax has been laid upon that subject. It is best, if it is your intention, whoever you might be, to find out for yourself what those certain and very specific activities are. There is no point in me just telling you what those activities are, and here is why, because the information I type here today is not in anyway reliable in a court of law as legal advice, or interpretation of law. You can not tell the tax collectors insisting you are liable for a tax that your not because I said so. That won't work at all!
Even if something like that could work, it wouldn't help you or anyone else if you or they did not know where in the Code these specific activities were and what they pertained to. The same goes with case law. It is not enough for you or anyone else to utter the mystical incantation Flora v. United States 362 U.S. 145 (1960). If you do not know this Case inside and out and especially if you do not understand that...
Continued...
reply to post by FollowTheConstitution
This was a duplicate of the last one. Please forgive me. Also, since I'm here, there are some spelling and grammatical errors in these posts I will fix later.
JPZ
[edit on 12-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
This was a duplicate of the last one. Please forgive me. Also, since I'm here, there are some spelling and grammatical errors in these posts I will fix later.
JPZ
[edit on 12-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
reply to post by FollowTheConstitution
continuing...
the Case of Flora v. United States is very narrow in its ruling, as is most rulings, and deals only with the specific facts of that case, then you are as helpless as a little lamb before the sacrificial alter. Even knowing the specific facts in regards to that case and knowing inside and out the ruling of that case can only truly be helpful to you to question assertions made by those insisting they have jurisdiction over you in regards to taxation of this so called "Personal Income Tax". You may be able to utter a mystical incantation and make an assertion relying upon Flora v. United States and get away with it, just as Kobe Bryant may be able to make a shot from the other side of the court at the last moment and it will actually go in the basket, but it is unlikely and should be avoided if possible, especially if that shot is necessary to win the game.
There is a reason that prosecutors are required to prove guilt and defendants not required to prove their innocence. Sometimes, when all the evidence presented makes one look guilty it becomes necessary to prove innocence in order to avoid conviction, but in the matter of this so called "Personal Income Tax" a willingness to prove non-liability is foolhardy at best. You are not required to prove anything and should rely on the legal means made available to you which means that you should let they who are prosecuting you prove you are liable for and/or subject to the tax and laws in question.
This brings me to a very important truth about the effort to extricate oneself from the muck and mire of this so called "Personal Income Tax" and that truth is that if anyone attempts to extricate themselves from this system, at some point they will very likely face some sort of prosecution for tax evasion. Unless they were foolish enough to make stupid assertions upon filing a valid tax return and there a numerous people sitting in prison today because they made some sort of claim on their valid tax return that they were not liable for the tax, or exempt from it because of this or that. In regards to exemption, it should be understood that the only people exempt form a tax are people liable to begin with. Someone who is not liable for a tax requires no exemption from it.
If a person is not liable for the tax and hopes to avoid harassment from the IRS by filing a valid tax return claiming they are not liable for and/or subject to the tax and law in question will quickly discover that such an action only guarantee's harassment and in fairness to the IRS it can be reasonably argued that a person who filed such a valid tax return with these sort of foolish "taxpayer" arguments were the ones guilty of harassment not the IRS. I can't stress this enough, if one is not liable for the tax to begin with then why would that person file a valid tax return?
These people, many who are currently serving time in prison, who have very vocally and, in my humble opinion, foolishly challenged, not the jurisdiction of the tax collector, but instead dared the IRS or other tax collection agency to prosecute them, may have their hearts in the right place but they must have been standing at the end of the line when brains were being passed out and thought it was trains that were being passed out instead.
Master Sun Tzu said there are five factors that must be considered before engaging in battle. Those five factors are:
1.) Moral Law
2.) Heaven
3.) Earth
4.) The Commander
5.) Method and discipline
As to the moral law this is the factor that causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so they will follow him regardless of their lives, not at all perplexed by any danger. In terms of the IRS, those people in complete accord with their ruler are the tax collectors and they are not at all living in fear for their lives nor are they concerned of any danger. They are backed by an insurmountable army and you, anyone of you who would dare challenge the authority of the IRS, are all alone.
As to Heaven, this signifies the seasons and the time, such as night and day, and cold and heat. In terms of the IRS, I assure you they know what time of day it is and they know how hot or cold things can get, do you?
As to Earth, this consists of the distances, far and near, the security of landscape and the dangers, the open battle field and the narrow passageways, the matters of life and death, or in terms of the IRS, the matter of conviction or acquittal. When challenging the IRS, the battle always begins in the open battlefields where it easy to see your opponent and the numbers that you face. For them they are many and for you, you are alone, it is therefore better to do battle in the narrow passages of the sacred halls of justice. Let them bring the battle to you while you defend, do not take the battle to them.
As to the commander, they stand for all that is virtuous, or not, all that is wise, or not, all that is benevolent, or not, all that is strict, or not, and all that is courageous, or not. For the IRS, it is up to you to decide if their commander is indeed virtuous, wise, benevolent, strict and courageous and then it is up to you to compare that to your own virtue, wisdom, benevolence, strictness and courage. If there is any chink in your opponents army it lies here with the commander, who is rarely visible and even harder to know who he is. Like the great and powerful Oz he hides behind a curtain and appears usually in the form of a disembodied head that huffs and puffs and appears to be more strict than benevolent, more courageous than either wise or virtuous and rules by primarily fear. Not so much over his own army but over those he hopes to rule.
As to the method and discipline, this means the marshaling of the army into its proper subdivisions, the scales of gradation in terms of rank of officers and those below that, the maintenance of roads by which they may access their supplies and control of expenditures. They have vasts amount of money to fight you, they have the proper subdivisions all in place to ensure any necessary plausible denial-ability, they have vast amounts of resources that you do not have.
When all this is considered and accurately determined you can know who will win.
Continued...
continuing...
the Case of Flora v. United States is very narrow in its ruling, as is most rulings, and deals only with the specific facts of that case, then you are as helpless as a little lamb before the sacrificial alter. Even knowing the specific facts in regards to that case and knowing inside and out the ruling of that case can only truly be helpful to you to question assertions made by those insisting they have jurisdiction over you in regards to taxation of this so called "Personal Income Tax". You may be able to utter a mystical incantation and make an assertion relying upon Flora v. United States and get away with it, just as Kobe Bryant may be able to make a shot from the other side of the court at the last moment and it will actually go in the basket, but it is unlikely and should be avoided if possible, especially if that shot is necessary to win the game.
There is a reason that prosecutors are required to prove guilt and defendants not required to prove their innocence. Sometimes, when all the evidence presented makes one look guilty it becomes necessary to prove innocence in order to avoid conviction, but in the matter of this so called "Personal Income Tax" a willingness to prove non-liability is foolhardy at best. You are not required to prove anything and should rely on the legal means made available to you which means that you should let they who are prosecuting you prove you are liable for and/or subject to the tax and laws in question.
This brings me to a very important truth about the effort to extricate oneself from the muck and mire of this so called "Personal Income Tax" and that truth is that if anyone attempts to extricate themselves from this system, at some point they will very likely face some sort of prosecution for tax evasion. Unless they were foolish enough to make stupid assertions upon filing a valid tax return and there a numerous people sitting in prison today because they made some sort of claim on their valid tax return that they were not liable for the tax, or exempt from it because of this or that. In regards to exemption, it should be understood that the only people exempt form a tax are people liable to begin with. Someone who is not liable for a tax requires no exemption from it.
If a person is not liable for the tax and hopes to avoid harassment from the IRS by filing a valid tax return claiming they are not liable for and/or subject to the tax and law in question will quickly discover that such an action only guarantee's harassment and in fairness to the IRS it can be reasonably argued that a person who filed such a valid tax return with these sort of foolish "taxpayer" arguments were the ones guilty of harassment not the IRS. I can't stress this enough, if one is not liable for the tax to begin with then why would that person file a valid tax return?
These people, many who are currently serving time in prison, who have very vocally and, in my humble opinion, foolishly challenged, not the jurisdiction of the tax collector, but instead dared the IRS or other tax collection agency to prosecute them, may have their hearts in the right place but they must have been standing at the end of the line when brains were being passed out and thought it was trains that were being passed out instead.
Master Sun Tzu said there are five factors that must be considered before engaging in battle. Those five factors are:
1.) Moral Law
2.) Heaven
3.) Earth
4.) The Commander
5.) Method and discipline
As to the moral law this is the factor that causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so they will follow him regardless of their lives, not at all perplexed by any danger. In terms of the IRS, those people in complete accord with their ruler are the tax collectors and they are not at all living in fear for their lives nor are they concerned of any danger. They are backed by an insurmountable army and you, anyone of you who would dare challenge the authority of the IRS, are all alone.
As to Heaven, this signifies the seasons and the time, such as night and day, and cold and heat. In terms of the IRS, I assure you they know what time of day it is and they know how hot or cold things can get, do you?
As to Earth, this consists of the distances, far and near, the security of landscape and the dangers, the open battle field and the narrow passageways, the matters of life and death, or in terms of the IRS, the matter of conviction or acquittal. When challenging the IRS, the battle always begins in the open battlefields where it easy to see your opponent and the numbers that you face. For them they are many and for you, you are alone, it is therefore better to do battle in the narrow passages of the sacred halls of justice. Let them bring the battle to you while you defend, do not take the battle to them.
As to the commander, they stand for all that is virtuous, or not, all that is wise, or not, all that is benevolent, or not, all that is strict, or not, and all that is courageous, or not. For the IRS, it is up to you to decide if their commander is indeed virtuous, wise, benevolent, strict and courageous and then it is up to you to compare that to your own virtue, wisdom, benevolence, strictness and courage. If there is any chink in your opponents army it lies here with the commander, who is rarely visible and even harder to know who he is. Like the great and powerful Oz he hides behind a curtain and appears usually in the form of a disembodied head that huffs and puffs and appears to be more strict than benevolent, more courageous than either wise or virtuous and rules by primarily fear. Not so much over his own army but over those he hopes to rule.
As to the method and discipline, this means the marshaling of the army into its proper subdivisions, the scales of gradation in terms of rank of officers and those below that, the maintenance of roads by which they may access their supplies and control of expenditures. They have vasts amount of money to fight you, they have the proper subdivisions all in place to ensure any necessary plausible denial-ability, they have vast amounts of resources that you do not have.
When all this is considered and accurately determined you can know who will win.
Continued...
reply to post by FollowTheConstitution
When determining the sheer might and force of the IRS or any state tax collection agency it certainly appears that they have the morality and numbers, the advantage of time and seasons, the advantage of battle fields, the proper command, and the method and discipline to easily defeat one single warrior who dares to stand up to them and simply say; "No!" But these five factors are only just the beginnings of Sun Tzu's advice from his text The Art of War, he spends a great deal of time and effort advising generals and even warriors on how to win. Such advice as: When the enemy attacks, retreat...when the enemy retreats, attack becomes invaluable advice to the lone warrior who dares to do battle with the IRS. Perhaps the single greatest advice Master Sun Tzu offers, in this regard, is the advice to: be wise but play the fool.
It is always better to keep your mouth shut and let others think you the fool then to speak up and remove all doubt. Besides, in terms of understanding the Internal Revenue Code only a fool would think he could understand it, so let those who think they do speak up and let those who are wise ask its meaning. Begin with the question: What is the subject of the tax?
If those who are asked the question are foolish enough to answer at that point: "Why that is simple, it is income that is the subject of the tax", then you have another question to ask: Is it a direct tax upon income or an indirect tax on income?. A wise man or woman will know at that moment that they have had a trap set for them and will attempt to avoid answering the question directly. A fool will answer and either way, they will have found themselves caught in your trap.
If it is answered that the so called "Personal Income Tax" is a direct tax on income, they will attempt to convince you that the 16th Amendment authorized such a direct tax without regard to apportionment. It is incumbent upon you to know why that is not correct. The Constitution is clear on what is required of all direct taxes and that is that they must be apportioned among the states. It should also be clear to anyone that Congress can not alter or change one part of the Constitution all ready in existence by Amendment. However, the most important thing to know about this spurious argument that the 16th Amendment authorized a direct tax on income without regard to apportionment is that SCOTUS has ruled on this issue and ruled to the contrary of such an argument.
I have mentioned the two seminal rulings in regards to that issue but they it worth repeating that both Brushaber v. Union Pacific and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. both made clear why it is not true that the 16th Amendment authorized Congress to levy a non-apportioned tax upon income and what that Amendment did do. Only the fool will engage in battle with the IRS without having come to know these two rulings intimately.
There are numerous books and web sites that will offer excerpts from these rulings to explain what the purpose of the 16th Amendment is, but if you do not know these Cases yourself and know them well, you will at some point discover that someone in the IRS does and will use those rulings against you. Particularly Brushaber which is a tedious and hard to read ruling, but if you do not take the time to read it, learn it, and memorize it, then when some crafty lawyer rattles of a quotation from that ruling necessarily omitting important language in order to make it appear the ruling said something other than it did, you will find yourself standing in amazement wondering what just happened?
If somebody has to stand, or sit on the witness stand and wonder what just happened, wouldn't it be better them than you? This is why I am insisting that you, and anyone else brave enough to stand tall and say to the IRS, "No!", that you take the time necessary to read the Case law pertinent to this discussion and the Internal Revenue Code and its subsequent Code of Federal Regulations. All of this reading constitutes the Heaven and Earth that Sun Tzu declared two of the factors. Just as Sun Tzu can not teach anyone what a battle field looks like or how it lays but can only stress how necessary one comes to know how it looks or how it lays, I can not teach you the law, or what it means. Only you can come to know that law and what it means on your own through your due diligence, which would be yet another one of the factors Sun Tzu mentioned, the method and discipline.
As to the numerous books and web sites available that would boldly claim to teach you how to battle and defeat the IRS, I can only warn you, just as I have warned you to avoid using my words as advice, that those words will only help you if you know what to look for to begin with. If you do not know what to look for then you might think they have supplied you with answers that are not answers at all, but are traps that could ensnare you rather than them.
Consider just one spurious argument made by various prophets of freedom who claim you do not owe an income tax because the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. This is absolute nonsense! Not because it is false, I personally do not know one way or the other if the 16th Amendment was ever properly ratified, but that is not important.
What is important to understand about this argument is that it is a taxpayer argument. A taxpayer is very specifically defined by the Internal Revenue Code and under those definitions, a "taxpayer" is someone who most certainly has been made liable for a tax and/or subject to the laws in question. To say "I am not liable for the income tax because the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified" is the same as saying, "if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, I would then be liable for an income tax because it was the 16th Amendment that would have made me liable but since it was never properly ratified the point is moot." Ha! Busted!! The person that makes that argument voluntarily admits to liability, whether it be ad-verdantly or inadvertently, it matters not, liability has been admitted.
It is far more important to understand the principle behind a law than to understand the law itself. For if that law has any validity it does so because it is...
Cont...
When determining the sheer might and force of the IRS or any state tax collection agency it certainly appears that they have the morality and numbers, the advantage of time and seasons, the advantage of battle fields, the proper command, and the method and discipline to easily defeat one single warrior who dares to stand up to them and simply say; "No!" But these five factors are only just the beginnings of Sun Tzu's advice from his text The Art of War, he spends a great deal of time and effort advising generals and even warriors on how to win. Such advice as: When the enemy attacks, retreat...when the enemy retreats, attack becomes invaluable advice to the lone warrior who dares to do battle with the IRS. Perhaps the single greatest advice Master Sun Tzu offers, in this regard, is the advice to: be wise but play the fool.
It is always better to keep your mouth shut and let others think you the fool then to speak up and remove all doubt. Besides, in terms of understanding the Internal Revenue Code only a fool would think he could understand it, so let those who think they do speak up and let those who are wise ask its meaning. Begin with the question: What is the subject of the tax?
If those who are asked the question are foolish enough to answer at that point: "Why that is simple, it is income that is the subject of the tax", then you have another question to ask: Is it a direct tax upon income or an indirect tax on income?. A wise man or woman will know at that moment that they have had a trap set for them and will attempt to avoid answering the question directly. A fool will answer and either way, they will have found themselves caught in your trap.
If it is answered that the so called "Personal Income Tax" is a direct tax on income, they will attempt to convince you that the 16th Amendment authorized such a direct tax without regard to apportionment. It is incumbent upon you to know why that is not correct. The Constitution is clear on what is required of all direct taxes and that is that they must be apportioned among the states. It should also be clear to anyone that Congress can not alter or change one part of the Constitution all ready in existence by Amendment. However, the most important thing to know about this spurious argument that the 16th Amendment authorized a direct tax on income without regard to apportionment is that SCOTUS has ruled on this issue and ruled to the contrary of such an argument.
I have mentioned the two seminal rulings in regards to that issue but they it worth repeating that both Brushaber v. Union Pacific and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. both made clear why it is not true that the 16th Amendment authorized Congress to levy a non-apportioned tax upon income and what that Amendment did do. Only the fool will engage in battle with the IRS without having come to know these two rulings intimately.
There are numerous books and web sites that will offer excerpts from these rulings to explain what the purpose of the 16th Amendment is, but if you do not know these Cases yourself and know them well, you will at some point discover that someone in the IRS does and will use those rulings against you. Particularly Brushaber which is a tedious and hard to read ruling, but if you do not take the time to read it, learn it, and memorize it, then when some crafty lawyer rattles of a quotation from that ruling necessarily omitting important language in order to make it appear the ruling said something other than it did, you will find yourself standing in amazement wondering what just happened?
If somebody has to stand, or sit on the witness stand and wonder what just happened, wouldn't it be better them than you? This is why I am insisting that you, and anyone else brave enough to stand tall and say to the IRS, "No!", that you take the time necessary to read the Case law pertinent to this discussion and the Internal Revenue Code and its subsequent Code of Federal Regulations. All of this reading constitutes the Heaven and Earth that Sun Tzu declared two of the factors. Just as Sun Tzu can not teach anyone what a battle field looks like or how it lays but can only stress how necessary one comes to know how it looks or how it lays, I can not teach you the law, or what it means. Only you can come to know that law and what it means on your own through your due diligence, which would be yet another one of the factors Sun Tzu mentioned, the method and discipline.
As to the numerous books and web sites available that would boldly claim to teach you how to battle and defeat the IRS, I can only warn you, just as I have warned you to avoid using my words as advice, that those words will only help you if you know what to look for to begin with. If you do not know what to look for then you might think they have supplied you with answers that are not answers at all, but are traps that could ensnare you rather than them.
Consider just one spurious argument made by various prophets of freedom who claim you do not owe an income tax because the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. This is absolute nonsense! Not because it is false, I personally do not know one way or the other if the 16th Amendment was ever properly ratified, but that is not important.
What is important to understand about this argument is that it is a taxpayer argument. A taxpayer is very specifically defined by the Internal Revenue Code and under those definitions, a "taxpayer" is someone who most certainly has been made liable for a tax and/or subject to the laws in question. To say "I am not liable for the income tax because the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified" is the same as saying, "if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, I would then be liable for an income tax because it was the 16th Amendment that would have made me liable but since it was never properly ratified the point is moot." Ha! Busted!! The person that makes that argument voluntarily admits to liability, whether it be ad-verdantly or inadvertently, it matters not, liability has been admitted.
It is far more important to understand the principle behind a law than to understand the law itself. For if that law has any validity it does so because it is...
Cont...
reply to post by FollowTheConstitution
Continuing...
...it is because the principle behind that law is sound. All sound laws are those laws that defend the rights of individuals. One might reasonably ask then how it is that legislation in regards to taxation is a law that defends the rights of individuals. The reasonable answer to that is that in order to form a more perfect union We the People ordained a government to protect help protect our rights and that formation of government requires funding and the best and surest way to fund that government is through taxation. Based on your avatar or user name, I would expect you to all ready know that Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation. This should never be in question. What should be in question is how you or I or Endisnighe or the vast majority of people became liable for a tax and/or subject to the laws regarding that tax, to begin with.
Always back to the original question, What is the subject of the tax? It is the single most important question to ask in regards to this so called "Personal Income Tax" because every tax must have a subject. What then, is the subject of the so called "Personal Income Tax"? The only valid answer, unless you or others have clearly been made liable for a tax by some specific section of the Code, is "I don't know." There are those who claim they do know and will point to the very first Section of Title 26 as the answer. Certainly the heading to that section appears to be an obvious statement of who has been made liable. In fact, the heading to Title 26 Section 1 states:
Sec. 1. Tax imposed.
Pretty darn clear, isn't it? However, what follows becomes a little less clear:
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of---
Taxable income? Does that mean income? If it does mean income why not just say so instead of qualifying income as taxable income? The answer to these questions are just as complex as the tax that has been imposed by Section 1 of Title 26 and begin with the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a document that grants the three branches of government a limited amount of power for a limited amount of time and in order for that to have any meaning at all, Congress has no power to come to its own conclusions as to what income means or doesn't mean and what income meant at the time the 16th Amendment was written is what income means today.
What income meant then and still means today is the money a person earns by the fruit of his or her own labor or design. Yet another very important Supreme Court ruling, regarding the definition of income is Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, at 206 (1920). This ruling explains clearly why Congress has no authority to define income. This is why Congress has not defined income but instead has defined taxable income which is defined as being either gross income or adjusted gross income depending upon a taxpayers circumstances.
It is interesting to note that Congress has defined gross income to mean all income, but Congress has not defined income itself. This important fact also happens to give clues as to why it is better to avoid making arguments or assertions and limit any strategy to asking questions and avoiding declarative statements as much as possible. It is too easy for a prosecutor or even a judge to make it appear as if you are playing games of semantics. It is not you, however, or even I right now who is playing games of semantics, it is Congress who imposed a tax on taxable income it is congress who defined that taxable income to mean gross income or adjusted gross income and it is even Congress who went as far as to give specific definitions as to what taxpayer means.
How is it that you or I became a taxpayer as specifically defined by the Code and how is it we came to earn taxable income? If anyone can effectively answer those questions then they can effectively show that you have indeed been liable for a tax and are unquestionably subject to the income tax laws. Even if they can not effectively answer these questions if you do not know what you are doing when confronting these tax collectors, prosecutors and judges, then they will make it appear to a jury that you are guilty of tax evasion or failure to file a valid tax return or even perjury. It is hard to convict someone who has made no assertions but has merely asked valid questions of perjury.
It is perhaps, the single greatest weakness of any given individual, their ability to confront. It is a failing for most of us, in my humble opinion, because there is such a very fine line between confront and confrontation and confrontation is not confront. Jesus was very good at confront, Gandhi was pretty damn good himself at confront, the people that Jesus and Gandhi confronted? Not so good at confront, as the hardest part of confront is when we ourselves are the ones being confronted. It is usually the ones being confronted who will endeavor to turn that confront into confrontation, although there are plenty of us who will attempt to confront an issue or a person and wind up turning it into confrontation before anyone else has the chance to. Once it turns to confrontation, then the battle is on and all efforts at diplomacy out the window.
Method and discipline; confront do not allow that confront to become confrontational. Whether you accept Jesus as a legitimate prophet or not, study his method and discipline and take note how often he answered a question with a question. Also take note that in the end he was crucified despite his best efforts at avoiding confrontation. I do not make note of this to discourage you or anyone else from fighting the good fight, I make note of it only to illustrate how next to impossible it can be to avoid confrontation and how imperative it is to avoid it.
This has been several posts written in an attempt to have an intelligent discussion, albeit a rather lengthy and somewhat lop sided conversation, on the principles of Constitutional taxation and the current laws being enforced in that regard. It is, as I have said repeatedly, too complex an issue to be understood by anybody, this I believe to be the truth, and it is the truth that will set you free.
Continuing...
...it is because the principle behind that law is sound. All sound laws are those laws that defend the rights of individuals. One might reasonably ask then how it is that legislation in regards to taxation is a law that defends the rights of individuals. The reasonable answer to that is that in order to form a more perfect union We the People ordained a government to protect help protect our rights and that formation of government requires funding and the best and surest way to fund that government is through taxation. Based on your avatar or user name, I would expect you to all ready know that Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation. This should never be in question. What should be in question is how you or I or Endisnighe or the vast majority of people became liable for a tax and/or subject to the laws regarding that tax, to begin with.
Always back to the original question, What is the subject of the tax? It is the single most important question to ask in regards to this so called "Personal Income Tax" because every tax must have a subject. What then, is the subject of the so called "Personal Income Tax"? The only valid answer, unless you or others have clearly been made liable for a tax by some specific section of the Code, is "I don't know." There are those who claim they do know and will point to the very first Section of Title 26 as the answer. Certainly the heading to that section appears to be an obvious statement of who has been made liable. In fact, the heading to Title 26 Section 1 states:
Sec. 1. Tax imposed.
Pretty darn clear, isn't it? However, what follows becomes a little less clear:
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of---
Taxable income? Does that mean income? If it does mean income why not just say so instead of qualifying income as taxable income? The answer to these questions are just as complex as the tax that has been imposed by Section 1 of Title 26 and begin with the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a document that grants the three branches of government a limited amount of power for a limited amount of time and in order for that to have any meaning at all, Congress has no power to come to its own conclusions as to what income means or doesn't mean and what income meant at the time the 16th Amendment was written is what income means today.
What income meant then and still means today is the money a person earns by the fruit of his or her own labor or design. Yet another very important Supreme Court ruling, regarding the definition of income is Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, at 206 (1920). This ruling explains clearly why Congress has no authority to define income. This is why Congress has not defined income but instead has defined taxable income which is defined as being either gross income or adjusted gross income depending upon a taxpayers circumstances.
It is interesting to note that Congress has defined gross income to mean all income, but Congress has not defined income itself. This important fact also happens to give clues as to why it is better to avoid making arguments or assertions and limit any strategy to asking questions and avoiding declarative statements as much as possible. It is too easy for a prosecutor or even a judge to make it appear as if you are playing games of semantics. It is not you, however, or even I right now who is playing games of semantics, it is Congress who imposed a tax on taxable income it is congress who defined that taxable income to mean gross income or adjusted gross income and it is even Congress who went as far as to give specific definitions as to what taxpayer means.
How is it that you or I became a taxpayer as specifically defined by the Code and how is it we came to earn taxable income? If anyone can effectively answer those questions then they can effectively show that you have indeed been liable for a tax and are unquestionably subject to the income tax laws. Even if they can not effectively answer these questions if you do not know what you are doing when confronting these tax collectors, prosecutors and judges, then they will make it appear to a jury that you are guilty of tax evasion or failure to file a valid tax return or even perjury. It is hard to convict someone who has made no assertions but has merely asked valid questions of perjury.
It is perhaps, the single greatest weakness of any given individual, their ability to confront. It is a failing for most of us, in my humble opinion, because there is such a very fine line between confront and confrontation and confrontation is not confront. Jesus was very good at confront, Gandhi was pretty damn good himself at confront, the people that Jesus and Gandhi confronted? Not so good at confront, as the hardest part of confront is when we ourselves are the ones being confronted. It is usually the ones being confronted who will endeavor to turn that confront into confrontation, although there are plenty of us who will attempt to confront an issue or a person and wind up turning it into confrontation before anyone else has the chance to. Once it turns to confrontation, then the battle is on and all efforts at diplomacy out the window.
Method and discipline; confront do not allow that confront to become confrontational. Whether you accept Jesus as a legitimate prophet or not, study his method and discipline and take note how often he answered a question with a question. Also take note that in the end he was crucified despite his best efforts at avoiding confrontation. I do not make note of this to discourage you or anyone else from fighting the good fight, I make note of it only to illustrate how next to impossible it can be to avoid confrontation and how imperative it is to avoid it.
This has been several posts written in an attempt to have an intelligent discussion, albeit a rather lengthy and somewhat lop sided conversation, on the principles of Constitutional taxation and the current laws being enforced in that regard. It is, as I have said repeatedly, too complex an issue to be understood by anybody, this I believe to be the truth, and it is the truth that will set you free.
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Excellent write up!
As to why would someone file a return if they thought they were not liable for a tax. It is in most cases by being frauded into filing a return by the IRS. The IRS sends threatening letters, they take upon themselves to access a tax they claim you owe and they file notice of liens against you which then ends up encumbering your property and results in negative damage to your credit report.
Based on the threats from the IRS one is mislead into thinking they are required to file a return and ends up complying based on those threats, coercion, fraud, disception.
Later, after the fact, after having done some research a person may discover they were never liable for a tax and were frauded and mislead into believing they were liable based on actions taken against them by the IRS.
Another issue is for those that believe they are not liable for a tax on the income derived from their personally labor, how do they deal with the problem of having to sign a W4 when their employers require them to sign one in order to become employed with their company? From my understanding the IRS will use the fact you signed a W4 as some type of admission that you owe a tax on the income from your personal labor? If a person wants a job they have no choice but to sign such a form or the employer will not hire them. It is this form that the employer bases what they report to the IRS on what amount of income they paid to the employee and the IRS appears to use that information to assess a tax on you if you do not file a return.
This is a very complex issue that makes it extremely difficult for the average person to be able to comprehend. Your write ups based on your own "opinion" is of great help as far as pointing people to the right direction to do their own research and seek the answers to finding the truth and understanding of this complex issue.
Excellent write up!
As to why would someone file a return if they thought they were not liable for a tax. It is in most cases by being frauded into filing a return by the IRS. The IRS sends threatening letters, they take upon themselves to access a tax they claim you owe and they file notice of liens against you which then ends up encumbering your property and results in negative damage to your credit report.
Based on the threats from the IRS one is mislead into thinking they are required to file a return and ends up complying based on those threats, coercion, fraud, disception.
Later, after the fact, after having done some research a person may discover they were never liable for a tax and were frauded and mislead into believing they were liable based on actions taken against them by the IRS.
Another issue is for those that believe they are not liable for a tax on the income derived from their personally labor, how do they deal with the problem of having to sign a W4 when their employers require them to sign one in order to become employed with their company? From my understanding the IRS will use the fact you signed a W4 as some type of admission that you owe a tax on the income from your personal labor? If a person wants a job they have no choice but to sign such a form or the employer will not hire them. It is this form that the employer bases what they report to the IRS on what amount of income they paid to the employee and the IRS appears to use that information to assess a tax on you if you do not file a return.
This is a very complex issue that makes it extremely difficult for the average person to be able to comprehend. Your write ups based on your own "opinion" is of great help as far as pointing people to the right direction to do their own research and seek the answers to finding the truth and understanding of this complex issue.
new topics
-
Breakthrough treatment flips cancer cells back into normal cells
General Chit Chat: 18 minutes ago -
New World Order Coming?
New World Order: 55 minutes ago -
Short vs. Long?
General Chit Chat: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Outgoing Lame Duck BIDEN Officials and Democrats Voice Their Regrets.
2024 Elections: 13 hours ago, 9 flags -
Reflections of Elections past
US Political Madness: 16 hours ago, 5 flags -
Short vs. Long?
General Chit Chat: 9 hours ago, 4 flags -
New World Order Coming?
New World Order: 55 minutes ago, 1 flags -
Breakthrough treatment flips cancer cells back into normal cells
General Chit Chat: 18 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
New World Order Coming?
New World Order • 7 • : GodisGreat23 -
2 Guys die hunting Bigfoot
Cryptozoology • 18 • : Xtrozero -
Why Such An Uproar Over Non-US Citizens With H1-B Work Visas.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 87 • : cherokeetroy -
Plane Crash in South Korea
Mainstream News • 19 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News • 131 • : lilzazz -
Outgoing Lame Duck BIDEN Officials and Democrats Voice Their Regrets.
2024 Elections • 15 • : Xtrozero -
Breakthrough treatment flips cancer cells back into normal cells
General Chit Chat • 0 • : alwaysbeenhere2 -
President Carter has passed
Mainstream News • 19 • : BernnieJGato -
Short vs. Long?
General Chit Chat • 11 • : Athetos -
Mood Music Part VI
Music • 3770 • : underpass61
7