Tax activist faces charges: Ex-IRS agent contends federal returns not required

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, November 30, 2004 | Art Moore

[Walkenfree]

Thank you for posting that informative article!
"If it sounds too good to be true, It's false."
Reform is needed.

[JohnHuang2]

My pleasure, friend.

[Paul C. Jesup]

This will be interesting to watch considering he worked within that corrupt system, so he should probably present a valid defense.

[goldstategop]

All you need to know is there's nothing VOLUNTARY about paying taxes. There's the mailed steel fist behind it. The only way the income tax system is "voluntary" is in the sense the authorities cart you off to prison if you don't send in the check. As far as freedom is concerned, the 16th Amendment is the worst travesty ever saddled upon this country.

[ovrtaxt]

If he doesn't somehow get this case into civil court and out of tax court, he won't stand a chance. That's like presenting a cogent theological defense before the Taliban.

[ovrtaxt]

I'm so sick of hearing about this injustice. Fair Tax now!!

[ancient_geezer]

If he doesn't somehow get this case into civil court and out of tax court, he won't stand a chance.

That only takes filing a motion to move it to federal court. However, his chances remain nil, because his belief rooted in a false premise, that payment of the income tax is not obligatory as a result of misconstuing and partial quoting of a basic case in tax law:

 

Flora vs U.S.(1960), 362. U.S. 145, and on pg. 176

• "The question presented is whether a Federal District Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1346 (a) (1) of a suit by a taxpayer for the refund of income tax payments which did not discharge the entire amount of his assessment."

• "the Government can collect the tax from a District Court suitor by exercising its power of distraint - if he does not split his cause of action - but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. A full-payment requirement will promote the smooth functioning of this system; a part-payment rule would work at cross-purposes with it.
  
  In sum, if we were to accept petitioner's argument, we would sacrifice the harmony of our carefully structured twentieth century system of tax litigation, and all that [362 U.S. 145, 177]   would be achieved would be a supposed harmony of 1346 (a) (1) with what might have been the nineteenth century law had the issue ever been raised. Reargument has but fortified our view that 1346 (a) (1), correctly construed, requires full payment of the assessment before an income tax refund suit can be maintained in a Federal District Court."

 

 

United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
ARGUED: Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr.[one of Schulz & Co. legal beagles], Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellants.

The jury heard not only the United States's evidence against the Meltons, but also the brothers' defense that they believed they were not "persons liable" for federal income tax. The jury rejected the excuse, however, and convicted them on nearly all counts.

• [Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
  26 U.S.C. s 1."

• [Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
  26 U.S.C. s 63.

• [Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
  26 U.S.C. s 61.
  
• [Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
  26 U.S.C. ss 6001
  26 U.S.C. ss 6011.

• Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
  26 U.S.C. s 6012.

The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations." United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990). The rarely recognized proposition that, "where the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant--actually or imputedly--lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Mallas, 762 F.2d at 363 (quoting United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir.1974)), simply does not apply here.

Each Melton brother had gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return in each of the years at issue. Therefore, each was a "person liable."

 

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

• Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.

• The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.

• We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.

 

---

 

VOLUNTARY in the Fed's eyes means:

• You can choose to do it their way;
• Choose to live on income below the povery line;
• Choose to exhaust your resources in Court;
• Choose to go on a Federal all expense paid vaction while you think it over;
• Choose to hide out and play parasite until you make a mistake and expose yourself to their tender mercies.

 

The only way the income tax system is going to go away, is legislatively:

 

H.R.25, S.1493
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org, http://www.salestax.org & http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/ftax.html

And clear the way for enactment & ratification Sam Johnson's proposed amendment to the constitution:

H.J.RES.61
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.
Sponsor: Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] (introduced 6/24/2003)      Cosponsors: 5
Latest Major Action: 9/4/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You missed my entire point, he worked within the IRS, therefore he would know something about it and would be able to present a defense.

[ovrtaxt]

No, I get it. I just recognize the absolute corruption of the kangaroo tax courts. Totally unconstitutional that they even exist. No matter what this guy presents, he's doomed if the IRS presides.

He needs to get it before a jury.

[AppyPappy]

A Certified Public Accountant in San Jose, Calif., Banister has been telling his clients they don't need to file federal income tax returns because the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," was never properly ratified.

Sure. And Bush wasn't elected President in 2000.

[Paul C. Jesup]

So you are calling U.S. courts 'kangaroo courts'. Are you sure you are not a DU plant because all you have been doing is saying negative comments towards this person's chances.

You remind of other people who post on FR and complain about how bad and corrupt the IRS and then they trun around say how it will be impossible for us to change/get rid of the IRS.

If you don't think positively about life, all you will do is exist in misery.

[drjimmy]

This will be interesting to watch considering he worked within that corrupt system, so he should probably present a valid defense.

The "system" doesn't have anything to do with his guilt or innocence. If his defense is based on the claim that the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never properly ratified, it seems to me to be a cut and dried case. Either it was or it wasn't, and he can present evidence to show his side and the government can present evidence to show its side. Whether the IRS is corrupt has no bearing on the case.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Does anyone ACTUALLY READ WHAT I POST before they comment.

[Raycpa]

About time this scumbag was indicted.

[Raycpa]

If his defense is based on the claim that the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never properly ratified, it seems to me to be a cut and dried case.

The SC has ruled. It declines to rule on something that is determined by congress.

[Condor51]

This guy is an IDIOT.
The constitutionality of the 16th amendment has been heard in every level of the Federal court system and the results wre always the same - it WAS ratified, pay your taxes.

[drjimmy]

Does anyone ACTUALLY READ WHAT I POST before they comment.
Yup. And using capital letters doesn't change the fact that any point you make about a corrupt IRS system is simply not germane to this guy's prosecution or defense. If you want to rebut what I said in my post, go ahead.

[Paul C. Jesup]

He worked for the IRS, but you seem and others he have replied to me seem to be ignoring the fact.