The United States Constitution authorize congress to tax income.
Title 26 of the United States Code is also known as the Internal Revenue Code. This tells what is taxable income.
The movie "Freedom to Fascism" is inaccurate, conspiracy theory nonsense. I suggest you go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and look up almost every point in the film. I also recommend that you try and verify different quotes from the film from RELIABLE websites.
Federal income taxes are NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The IRS is NOT ABOVE the Supreme Court. It just happens to be the case that the IRS usually acts within the law.
Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, in part, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,..."
Income taxes are legal under the Constitution because income taxes are INDIRECT taxes in a Constitutional sense. In HYLTON v. U S, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), a Supreme Court that included at least two of the original framers of the Constitution, Justice Samuel Chase stated, "...the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
In 1861, the first income tax law in the U.S. was passed. In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880) (A Supreme Court case), the court had to consider whether an income tax on an individual was constitutional. The court stated, "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." Springer was the plaintiff in error. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax law that was in effect in 1865.
After the ratification of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court in STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916) stated, "...by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous COMPLETE AND PLENARY POWER OF INCOME TAXATION POSSESSED BY CONGRESS FROM THE BEGINNING from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..."
BTW, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which later became the IRS, was established in 1862.
The book, "The Law that Never Was" by Bill Benson has been completed refuted. Also, no court has EVER accepted any of the arguments brought forth in that book. Here is a court case that discussed the book. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986). You can read it at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/788/788.F2d.1250.85-2120.html
The current income tax laws are codified as Title 26 of the U.S. Code. You can read them at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html or at http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_26.shtml
It is long and boring reading, but they are all there. The sections that apply to most people are sections 1, 61, 62, 63, 3402, 6011, and 6012.
The Federal Reserve act was properly passed by Congress and does not require a Constitutional amendment. While the Federal Reserve Act was passed on Dec. 23, 1913, according to the Congressional record, the bill passed the house by a count of 298 to 60. 358 members voted out of 435, that's pretty good attendance. That's probably better attendance than the current House of Representative gets on most days. The Senate passed the bill with a vote of 43 to 25. That's 68 members voted out of 96. Again, that is good attendance.
The quote by Woodrow Wilson that the film says he made in 1919 is false. First, there is no record anywhere that Woodrow Wilson said the first part of that quote. The rest of the quote is taken from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom". However, "The New Freedom" was published in 1913! Also, the book is actually a compilation of speeches he made on the campaign trail during 1911 and 1912. He was really discussing corporate monopolies and not the Federal Reserve (which didn't exist yet) or the banks. You can read "The New Freedom" for yourself at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811
The Federal Reserve is independently audited every year. Those audits and more are part of the Federal Reserve annual report to Congress.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual07/default.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual07/sec6/c3.htm
Look at all I have written refuting many points in the movie, "Freedom to Fascism" and that's only the first five minutes of it.
There are many more quotes in the movie that are taken completely out of context and there are many claims in the movie that are just plain wrong.
EDIT: Greg,
I am neither a lawyer or work for the government. I am, however, an accountant and a computer programmer. Studying tax law, especially where it pertains to idiotic tax protester theories, is a hobby.
The 5th amendment protects people from being a witness against themselves in CRIMINAL cases. The application of the income tax is a CIVIL matter which means the 5th amendment does not apply. In United States v. MacLeod, 436 F.2d 947, 951 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. den. 402 U.S. 907 (1971), the court stated, "The statutory requirement to file an income tax return does not violate a taxpayer’s right against self-incrimination."
The part of the income tax that is voluntary is the tax payers ASSESSMENT of how much taxes they were responsible for. What is not voluntary is the payment of those taxes. If a person would be due a refund, the IRS will not bother checking to make certain that person files a return. What will happen is the IRS will do an assessment for the individual using the least favorable circumstances to the individual. If the individual is due a refund under those circumstances, the IRS will not pursue the matter and will not send the refund. The individual has three years to file a tax return in order to claim their refund. If they don't, the refund is lost for all time.
Finally, a direct tax is legal if it is apportioned amongst the states. However, as I stated, the income tax is an INDIRECT TAX in a constitutional sense. The only requirement for an indirect tax is that it is uniform IN A GEOGRAPHIC sense. The current income tax is uniform geographically.
EDIT:
A tax return is required. 26 USC 6001 and 26 USC 6011.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006001----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006011----000-.html
I have answered all of those idiotic tax protester theories at one time or another. You should go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and see the refutation of all those anti-tax arguments.
BTW, I may be an accountant, but I do not do tax work. Contrary to tax protester rhetoric, not all accountants deal with taxation. In fact, most only deal with it periodically. Most of my income is derived from my computer programming skills.
All of your statements misconstrue the nature of income taxes in some manner. For example, income taxes are uniform in a geographic sense because a person living in Florida with a certain income and a particular amount of deductions pays the same as a person living in New Hampshire who makes the same income and has the same amount of deductions. In other words, everyone is subject to the same federal income tax laws regardless of where they live.
You can believe all those idiotic tax protester theories all you want. You are wrong. The law says you are wrong. The courts say you are wrong.
Your statement about the Federal Reserve shows that you know absolutely nothing about the Federal Reserve.
Finally, as far as rewards go, read http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#rewards He explains it quite well.
EDIT:
I have explained it. If you don't understand it, that is your problem. There is a law concerning income taxes. If a person earns more than the standard deduction, the law requires an income tax return. Various sections of Title 26 specify there are taxes imposed and what deductions from income a person may take. You can continue to believe idiotic tax protester theories all you want. Wesley Snipes, Ed and Elaine Brown, Sherry Peel Jackson, Irwin Schiff, Larken Rose, Walter Thompson, Eddie Kahn, Lindsey Springer, Lynne Meredith, John Kotmair, Ed Kotmair, and many others believed or promoted many anti-tax schemes. They all have one other thing in common, they have all been convicted of breaking the tax laws.
BTW, in order to be CHARGED with breaking a law, THERE MUST BE A LAW TO BE BROKEN. In order for a person to be charged with willful failure to file tax returns, there has to be a law that says they must file tax returns.
Finally, you are wrong about the Federal Reserve because you don't understand it. Yahoo does not provide enough space for me to fully explain it to you.
That is the current debate. I believe the tax as it is, is illegal. The tax code says only corporations and non resident aliens can be taxed, but somehow they take your money. Read Cracking the Code, very informative.
I too don't want to pay but they force money out of my pocket and give that to Iraqis.
You are right, there is no law. For proof, take a look at the books "The Law That Never Was" volumes 1 and 2 which proves beyond any doubt that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was never legally ratified.
Additionally, the 5th Amendment protects you from becoming a witness against yourself. A law requiring you to fill out a tax return and signing it under the penalty of perjury would violate your 5th Amendment rights so they have to make it voluntary and then scare you into volunteering. In the court case Gardner vs US, the judge ruled that filing a tax return was a voluntary act. If you volunteer a tax return, they can use it against you in a court of law.
Keep watching and reading
In Response to NGC6205 below. He must be a tax attorney or work for the government in some capacity, I would bet his income is somehow derived from the current illegal income tax program.
Tell me MR. NGC6205, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution gives citizens the right NOT to be a witness against themselves. If an income tax return was required by law, then the government would be requiring people to sign a form that could ultimately be used against them in a court of law, thus violating their 5th Amendment right. Citizens cannot be compelled to be a witness against themselves, it's unconstitutional.
This is why the income tax system is "VOLUNTARY", it's the only way the government can use the tax returns against you in a court of law. If it was required, they couldn't use it.
Oh and your interpretation about Article 1 Section 8 referring to direct taxes. A direst tax is legal if everyone pays the same amount of money ie. ($100 per person) so that everyone would be taxed equally. The current tax system is a progressive one and the taxes are figured per a person's income, not per person.
Additionally, a good friend of mine has NEVER paid income taxes or filed an income tax return, he has been working since 1976. The IRS knows about it, knows where he lives, and asks him every 3 or 4 years where his tax returns are. His response to them is, "Show me where I'm required to file and I'll file" and they go away. He knows that the day they can show him a requirement to file, he will file......but.....they won't be able to use it in a court of law.
Read the Privacy Act notice on the back of your IRS booklets and they state that our tax system is a "Voluntary Compliance System) or better yet, hire an attorney and go to court to ask a judge to certify that you are "Required" to file an income tax return.
If they could require one, don't you think it would have been done by now?
Mr. NGC6205,
1. You didn't answer my question, if they could require a tax return, don't you think they would come out and just say,"An Income Tax Return Is Required".
2. I figured your income was somehow based on the current income tax system, that's one of the main reasons for people hiring your services. You're dependent on this system.
3. Bill Bensson's book was never refuted. Mr. Benson used to work for the taxing authorities and it was his job to prepare to refute a tax protester's assertion that the 16th Amendment was never ratified. When he found out the protester was right, he brought it to the attention of his superiors and was fired from his job because he wouldn't supress the info. He spent 2 years going to the 48 State archives(Alaska & Hawaii weren't around then) and got certified copies of their 16th Amendment text and how the State legislators voted. There were several different versions of the 16th Amendment ratified by the different States (which is illegal) but when Tennessee voted, the vote was something like 22 to 9 AGAINST the 16th Amendment. Someone committed fraud and switched the numbers to make it appear that Tennessee had ratified the 16th. Bill Benson put the certified copies from all of the State archives of the 16th Amendment ratification in his book.
Bill Benson asked the courts to rule on the fraudulent ratification and they told him it was a Legislative issue. He sent copies of his books to every Congressman and Senator asking for redress, he was told it was a judicial matter because it included fraud. The government doesn't want this issue in the public.
4. The same thing happened to Joe Bannister. He was a IRS agent working for the Crimminal Investigation Division CID and went after a tax protester in San Francisco. He gathered material that he couldn't refute and asked for help from his superiors to prove the tax protester was wrong. They couldn't refute the information and instructed Joe to keep quiet. He didn't and they fired him.
5. In Gardner vs US, the US was trying to prove that Gardner was involved in illegal gambling and used his income tax returns (which showed gambling losses) to prove their case. Gardner objected at the use of his income tax returns because they were a required form and it violated his 5th Amendment right. The judge ruled that the income tax return was voluntary and overruled his objection so please don't tell me that an income tax return can't be used against you in a crimminal case.
6 You say that an Indirect Tax is uniform in a geographic sense? What are you smoking? You think Alaska pays the same amount as California? This income tax is a direct tax....a tax on a person and it is in no way constitutional.
7. The Federal Reserve Bank is a private bank, owned by mostly people from other countries. Why doesn't our government coin our own money? Oh, that's right, then they would be subject to Article 1 Section 10 of our Constitution...you know....gold and silver coin instead they use the Federal Reserve to avoid Constitutional requirements. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I think it was Jefferson that said that whenever government becomes destructive of the people it it the right of the people to alter or abolish it. This government is definitely out for themselves and so are all of the people that depend on it financially.
You are a biased individual because your business depends on the current tax system.
If you believe you are correct, I've heard that there are individuals out there who will give you $1,000,000 if you can prove that an individual is required to file an income tax return, why don't go go and collect it if you really believe you're right.
Mr. NGC
It's you thats completely uninformed about the Federal Reserve and about the income taxes. If you are so sure of yourself, there's 1 million dollars waiting out there for you if you can prove it.
And I was right about being dependent on the tax system....YOUR CLIENTS NEED YOUR SERVICES SO THEY CAN FILL OUT THEIR TAX RETURNS.....
Are you that blind????
Christopher Columbus was the only one that thought the world was round and we all know how that one turned out.
Our country fought a revolution over a one half of one percent tax on tea.
If the original 13 colonies were made up of people who think like you do, we would be under British rule.
In 1995, the IRS stated that over 35 million people in this country were not volunteering (refusing) to file income tax returns....go ahead, be one of the sheep and while you're at it
DON'T TAKE ANY EXEMPTIONS OR DEDUCTIONS WHEN YOU FILE, PAY THE ENTIRE TAX DUE......
Taking these exemptions is a conservative trait and from your writings, you are definitely a liberal redcoat.
In looking up your IRS codes 6001 and 6011, they clearly start out by saying
Every Person liable & When Required By Regulations....read them before you pretend to know what they are talking about.
It doesn't say "every person is liable", it says "every person liable".....And just who is liable???? Why don't you show me as an American citizen where I'm required by law to file and pay income taxes instead of giving me other people's opinions. SHOW ME THE LAW!!!
"When Required By Regulation" only talks about another potential regulation...this doesn't require anything, it just talks about when. So tell me NGC, when????
The reason they write it tis way is to imply that there is a requirement...there isn't and you can't find it. The Selective Service regulations say "Every male when he turns the age of 18 is REQUIRED to register with the selective service.
Why doesn't the IRS code spell it out like that? Because there is NO requirement and you cannot find where it says who is required.
All those movies aren't exactly to truth even though I also enjoy watching them...Pick up a Ron Paul book he's really good a defining the logic behind what movies like that are trying to get at.
No comments:
Post a Comment