Posted on 01/13/2003 6:31:26 PM PST by trick question
The widely promoted claim that Americans are not required to pay income taxes on their wages is false, a federal judge ruled Friday in ordering one of its leading proponents to stop inciting tax evasion.
The judge, Christopher C. Conner, ordered the proponent, Thurston Paul Bell of Hanover, Pa., to post the court's order at his Web site (www.nite.org). Mr. Bell was also ordered to remove all language promoting the claim, known as the 861 position after a section of the tax code, that only those working for foreign-owned companies owe taxes on their wages.
Mr. Bell must turn over to the Justice Department copies of his client's tax returns, notify them that their returns were false and notify them that in addition to owing taxes they may face penalties for filing frivolous returns. Any refunds they obtained were erroneous, Judge Conner said, and the Internal Revenue Service may take them back.
Mr. Bell did not respond to e-mail and a fax seeking comment.
The preliminary injunction is the most serious blow to what members call the tax honesty movement, which has gained thousands of followers in the last two years, largely through full-page advertisements in USA Today. Members call the federal government a criminal organization.
The 861 position is nonsense, ruled Judge Conner of United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. At least a dozen other courts have taken the same position, but that has not stopped people from paying at least $1,000 to Mr. Bell and others who claim that they have found a way to legally stop paying taxes.
Judge Conner noted that Mr. Bell conceded that Section 861 specified that wages earned in the United States were taxable.
Mr. Bell said, however, that the regulations implementing the law exempted wages paid by domestic companies from being taxed. Judge Conner said this false claim "rests purely on semantics and takes the regulations under Section 861 out of context."
Mr. Bell told the judge last year that he had a First Amendment right to promote his political views.
Judge Conner held Friday that Mr. Bell was running a business that incited people to violate the law, that his Web site was an advertisement for illegal advice and that he was engaged in commercial, not political, speech.
"Although the First Amendment protects commercial speech generally, it does not protect false commercial speech," Judge Conner wrote in rejecting Mr. Bell's First Amendment argument.
Businessmen have reportedly boasted of not paying taxes based on the 861 position. They said that the Internal Revenue Service knew that some of them had not paid taxes for two decades, but had done nothing, which they took as confirmation of their belief that the tax laws were a hoax. None of those businessmen have been indicted and some of them say the I.R.S. still has not contacted them.
We the People, an organization in Queensbury, N.Y., which has promoted the 861 position, has urged all Americans to stop paying taxes because federal officials will not meet with them to explain what authority the government has to impose taxes. Not paying taxes is the "one non-violent option left" to tyranny, according to the group.
We the People has NOT suggested the 861 position at all. Please check their web site at www.givemeliberty.org before you quote them incorrectly.
Umm.... Well, before your foot is inserted any further in your gullet, I suggest you research this question for yourself.
Start with a search under "Brushaber" and go from there....
Good luck, on becoming more educated.
Shrugging off these defeats, Schiff ventured into court once again. Schiff vs. U.S. 73 AFTR 2d Par 94-517 (U.S. Dist. Ct. 1989). This time in a civil case in which he was hit with civil fraud penalties, he claimed that the IRS could not assess taxes against him. The tax system is unconstitutional; and he sincerely believed that he was not required to pay tax. Predictably, he lost again on all counts. The court made the following findings and conclusions:Avoid these tax scams like the plague. And avoid other tax scams and expatriation scams and other snake oil scams like the plague. Anyone who tries to tell you differently is playing you like a fool or is a fool himself.1. Schiff failed to file an accurate tax return, so his voluntary assessment was zero. Once the IRS filed a zero assessment tax return for the taxpayer, the IRS could then assess a deficiency (an additional amount of tax) against Mr. Schiff.
2. Schiff was given the right to contest the deficiency in Tax Court, which he failed to do.
3. The U.S. tax laws are constitutional. With respect to this argument, the court made the following succinct observation:
The authority given to Congress to lay and collect taxes, see U.S. Const. Art. Section 8, Cl 1, as modified by the 16th Amendment, allows the imposition of an income tax without limitation. The 16th Amendment removed the limitation on Congress’s authority to impose a direct tax only if proportioned among the States, stating the "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment. See, e.g. Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1, 17-19 (1916) [The Court upheld the validity of the 16th Amendment, finding that it eliminated the requirement that direct taxes, such as the income tax, on all income from whatever source derived, need no longer be apportioned.4. Regarding the civil fraud penalty, the court found that Schiff paid no taxes and failed to properly file tax returns. In refuting his claim that he sincerely believed he did not have to pay taxes, the court found that Schiff was an intelligent person with a broad knowledge of tax law, inasmuch as he has written books on the subject and has appeared on television discussing the issue. The court made the following crucial distinction:The court finds plaintiff's attempts to exculpate himself from the fraud penalty based on the sincerity of his belief that he need not pay income taxes to be without merit. While a failure to pay because of a "misunderstanding of law" may not sustain the imposition of the fraud penalty, "disagreement with the law" provides no defense United States v. Schiff, 801 F.2d 108, 112 (2d Cir. 1986). As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted, "[t]he distinction [between a misunderstanding and a disagreement] is necessary to the functioning of our tax system. Without it, any taxpayer could evade tax obligations simply by stubbornly refusing to admit error despite the receipt of any number of authoritative statements of the law." Id.In a prior action involving plaintiff's liability for tax evasion and fraudulent underpayment of taxes, the Tax Court, after reviewing the evidence and considering plaintiff's arguments, concluded:Petitioner is free to argue his theories to Congress, but he cannot disregard the laws passed by Congress and upheld by the courts, fail to perform an affirmative duty imposed on him by those laws, and then expect to avoid the consequences of his avowedly freely exercised disobedience.
Schiff, T.C. Memo. 1984-223.
the case law supports this claim. All the way up to the US Supreme Court. Well-established, and their rulings (which support such claims) have never been overturned, or legislated into obsolescence.
Which is why I say, research before you jump on the nanny-state bandwagon...
Be well.
Close, but no cigar (unless your name is Monica).
Cite the cases.
It would seem like it's more a blow to free speech. Wasn't it in Canada that somebody got hung out to dry (judicially) for claiming the Holocaust did/didn't happen? If the judiciary can tell us what we can and cannot say, well, I guess this experiment in government is ended -- and it failed.
Caveat auditor, caveat lector.
Thurston Bell was taking money in return for giving advice that he CLAIMED would reduce your tax liability to ZERO.
The claim was incorrect.
The courts can and do enjoin speech pursuant to fraud.
Well this is interesting. Didn't a state supreme court somewhere recently rule that a candidate or political action group can lie through their teeth in an election because it is protected by free speech? So if I have this straight, a candidate can lie to us to get elected but we can't saying anything allegedly false to promote our cause?
Fraud is not protected speech under the first amendment.
Mr. Bell's "scheme" pales by comparison, no?
Start with a search under "Brushaber" and go from there....
Actually it pays to start abit earlier:
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)
PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433
Lane Co. v. Oregon (1868), 74 U.S. [7 Wall.] 71:
United States v. Cruikshank(1876), 92 U.S. 542:
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
POINDEXTER v. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 270 (1885)
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced,-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
16. The injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting it. It takes invested wealth, and reads it into the constitution as a favored and protected class of property, which cannot be taxed without apportionment, while it leaves the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic, and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a people must depend, subject to taxation without that condition.
Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:
COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:
U.S. v. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)
Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955).
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."
26 USC 7805(a) Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - … the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…" [26 USC § 7805]
Thus under amplifying Treasury regulations for 26 USC 1, 26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.
Nice word twist. The term "cause" is usually aligned with not-for-profit activism.
This guy had fees. But then again so does Jesse Jackson.
So the short answer is "Yes". With volumns to explain otherwise.
I haven't noticed We The People trying to scam anyone. Did I miss something?
Yah, their books store, featuring the failed theories of Ewin Schiff, Bannister & Conklin, et al.
...a candidate can lie to us to get elected but we can't saying anything allegedly false to promote our cause?...
Sure you can, just don't expect to get away with selling bad advice to your customers while your at it. Someone might call you on it in a suit for fraudulent business practice, not to mention any criminal proceedings that could arise as well.
Besides, nothing to stop someone else to point out the false nature of such claims.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
James Madison, Federalist #39:
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
James Madison, Federalist #45:
- "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services. As to servants wages, see Chitty, Contr. 171 as to sailors' wages, Abbott on Ship. 473; generally, see 22. Vin. Abr. 406; Bac. Abr. Master, &c., H; Marsh. Ins. 89; 2 Lill. Abr. 677; Peters' Dig. Admiralty, pl. 231, et seq.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
COMPENSATION, contracts. A reward for services rendered.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
GAIN. The word is used as synonymous with profits.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
PROFITS. In general, by this term is understood the benefit which a man derives from a thing. It is more particularly applied to such benefit as arises from his labor and skill
Compensation received for labor or product is commerce, a contract subject to duty or excise.
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax." "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." Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:
- "'[I]ncome' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
- "the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:
- "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, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:
- The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.
- "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."
- Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
- "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
Can anyone here produce a case where Schiff's "0 return" policy has been taken to trial by the IRS? I'd be interested .
Erwin Schiff, who is the author of the "Zero Income Tax Return" makes it clear very clear on his own website, himself:
"The fact that the law doesn't authorize a tax on wages also doesn't "fly" in our courts - as of today."
Furthermore the Brown Case brought with the help of Ewin Schiff based on his 0 tax return theories on other notions provided by him and legal memoranda authored by him while aiding the Browns in their endevour, failed all the way up the line.
Schiff: http://www.ischiff.com/taxcase.htm & http://www.paynoincometax.com/taxcase.htm
"The case now pending before the Supreme Court, Brown v. The United States, Docket No. 99-2066, if heard , will end the income tax. The case focuses on a tax that few Americans know exists: the Federal "wage tax." Since 1943, this tax has been collected (and disguised) by the Government as the withholding of income taxes "at the source." However, the taxes that get "withheld" from a worker's pay each week are not income taxes. They have nothing to do with income taxes or the 16th Amendment. They represent a "wage tax" imposed in Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code. Income taxes are imposed in Section 1. "
Refer: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2066.htm
"When Robert and Elena Brown of Las Vegas filed their 1996 "zero" income tax return, they requested a refund of the $5,035 in "wage taxes" they had paid that year. When the Government failed to send them their refund check as
required by over 20 statutes, three constitutional provisions, and numerous Supreme Court decisions they sued the Government in Federal court in Las Vegas. They were entitled to the refund on at least two grounds. The
Government admitted that no income taxes for 1996 had been assessed against
them and no court had ever held that they owed income taxes for that year. In addition, they were entitled to a "credit" for the wage taxes they had paid against the income taxes they owed. Since (as explained above) they owed no income taxes, the "credit" had to take the form of a cash refund. "
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT A. BROWN; ELENA H. BROWN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket: 99-15308 Filed October 26, 1999
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Docket: CV-98-00825-PMP
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
MEMORANDUM <<1>>
Before: BROWNING, WALLACE and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Robert and Elena Brown appeal pro se the district court's summary judgment for the United States in the Browns' action seeking a refund of taxes paid for tax year 1996 on the ground the IRS had failed to make any assessment against them and they had no tax liability. These arguments are
frivolous. First, the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1988). Second, compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, is income subject to taxation. See United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981). The Browns are taxpayers within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code and are subject to federal tax laws and income tax. See id.
Third, there is no requirement that the IRS make a formal assessment of tax liability before payment is necessary. An assessment is merely a bookkeeping procedure that permits the government to bring its administrative apparatus to bear in collecting a tax. See Zeier v. United States, 80 F.3d 1360, 1354 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejecting similar argument in
estate tax context). Most taxes are collected voluntarily, without an assessment; an assessment serves as the basis on which the IRS takes action against those who do not voluntarily pay their taxes on time. See id.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED
APPENDIX D –
ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF
JANUARY 19, 1999
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ENTERED AND SERVED
JAN 21 1999
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
D.C. No CV No. CV-98-00825-PMP (RJJ)
ROBERT A. BROWN,
ELENA H. BROWN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER
This action was commenced on May 29, 1998, by the filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint to recover overpayment of federal income taxes for the year 1996 (#1).
On November 30,1998, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (#12). On December 14, 1998, Defendant United States filed a Response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#13-#15). On January 6, 1999, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#16).
The pleadings and Motions on file, and particularly the Form W-2’s submitted as exhibits to Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#15), unambiguously show that Plaintiffs Robert A. Brown and Elena H. Brown received the sums of $23,846.73 and $20,354.42, respectively, for the year 1996 and that a total of $5,035.50 was withheld for that year. Plaintiffs’ suit for refund is grounded in the claim that because no assessment had been made against them with regard to income taxes at the time they filed their income tax return, Form 1049 (sic), for the year 1996, they are entitled to a full refund of the entire amount of the taxes withheld. Plaintiffs are wrong.
The absence of a tax assessment by the Internal Revenue Service does not prove that a taxpayer owes no taxes. See 26 U.S.C. par. 6151 and Moran v. U.S., 63 F. 3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 1995). Indeed, the undisputed facts before the Court demonstrate that Plaintiffs cannot prove their claim of overpayment and entitlement to refund.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#12) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#13-#15) is granted and that Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant United States and against Plaintiffs Robert A. Brown and Elena H. Brown.
DATED: January 19, 1999
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
Appeal Issues raise in Appellants brief.
1. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with numerous statutes passed by Congress, prior rulings of this Court, and prior rulings of the Ninth Circuit and other circuit courts in holding that plaintiffs can owe income taxes even though:
a) No assessments for the funds at issue exist, and
b) No court has ever ruled that plaintiffs owed any income taxes for the year at issue?
2. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with the apportionment provisions of the Constitution and the holding of this Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust , 158 U.S. 601, and Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, 240 U.S. 1 in holding that petitioners were required to pay a direct tax on their wages (as imposed in Code Section 3402(a)(1)) despite the fact that the such a direct tax was not imposed on the basis of apportionment and despite the fact that such funds were required to be refunded to petitioners pursuant to the provisions of 26 U.S.C 31(a)(1)?
3. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with all of the taxing clauses of the Constitution and this Court's holdings in both Pollock, supra, and Brushaber, by permitting the United States to retain funds collected as a federal tax but which were not collected either on the basis of apportionment as provided for in Article 1, Sections 2 and 9, Clauses 3 and 4, nor on the basis of geographic uniformity as provided for in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution?
4. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with this Court's holding in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, supra, by claiming in its ruling that “The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens.”?
5. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution and decisions of this Court in holding that federal courts and the petitioners are not bound by the “legislative powers “ vested in Congress, but are only bound by such court decisions as the Ninth Circuit deems appropriate to select and cite?
6. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with 26 U.S.C. 61 and the holding of this Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, supra and Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 in holding that that “Compensation for labor services, paid in the form of wages or salary, is income subject to taxation.”
7. Whether citizens of the United States have a right “to have the Assistance of Counsel” of their own choosing as guaranteed to them by the 6th Amendment, or are they now restricted by being allowed to have for such assistance only such “officers of the court” as are permitted by this Court?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2066.htm
| No. 99-2066 | Status: | DECIDED |
| Title: | Robert A. Brown, Petitioner | |
| v. | ||
| United States | ||
| Docketed: | Lower Ct: | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| June 23, 2000 | (99-15208) |
| ~~Date~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Jun 23 2000 | Petition for writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 23, 2000) |
| Jun 23 2000 | Appendix of petitioner filed. |
| Jun 29 2000 | Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed. |
| Jul 5 2000 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 25, 2000 |
| Oct 2 2000 | Petition DENIED. |
| ******************************************************** | |
I think you will agree taxes are collected coercively.
I'm having a hard time distinguishing tax collectors from armed robbers. Are taxes deductible as casualty losses?
In the letter your friend wrote, he simply said that he was a nonresident alien with no income from any source within the United States. It's a common theme in the tax evasion community. Your friend's attempt to get rid of his Social Security Number and all official documents ties in with that--he will try to claim that he is a sovereign individual and thus not "subject" to ANY government. Such claims are simply not recognized, and when the IRS does catch up with him (they are simply waiting for his tax liability, plus interest, plus penalties to exceed a certain level so they can seize all of his property), it will be time for him to give his soul to Jesus, because his a$$ (and all appurtenances and chattels thereunto appended) will belong to the IRS.
He's been left alone...because he's paying his taxes.
Generally, if a tax guru isn't following his own technique, it says much about whether YOU should follow it.
It sounded like semantics.
It is. And the Courts don't buy it. Many other folks who believed like your friend:
Quatloo's Tax Protestor Gallery
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a"person" under the tax code.
- 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.
Have you heard of anything like this and if so,
Yes, I was one of them at one time. I took the effort to look deeper for a defense before leaping however; unlike several unfortunate friends who did not see the value of discretion and research and the IRS laid it hard on them.
A comprehensive FAQ compiled by a lawyer of all the Tax Protest arguments that have failed repeatedly and why:
would you say my friend is going to get caught sooner or later?
Who knows, as long as he doesn't file and is earning income beyond the threshold of filing, he is legally vulnerable to being caught. The letter to the IRS just places them on notice to look into his finances at their leisure. The longer they wait the higher the interest, fines and penalties they can tack on.
That you are a lawyer, puts you on the same level as a used-car salesman.
That you are a tax lawyer...? Says you are interested in maintaining the status quo... In other words, you have NO credibility.
Nice try.
what is the definition of income, as defined by US Supreme Court, and never overturned?
Same as it was before the 16th Amendment:
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
GAIN. The word is used as synonymous with profits.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
PROFITS. In general, by this term is understood the benefit which a man derives from a thing. It is more particularly applied to such benefit as arises from his labor and skillStratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:
- "'[I]ncome' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
Eisner v. Macomber(1920), 252 U.S. 189,207
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189#207
- "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), ... , 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054)."
FindLaw: HELVERING v. BLISS, 293 U.S. 144 (1934)
- 'Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service, of ...
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services. As to servants wages, see Chitty, Contr. 171 as to sailors' wages, Abbott on Ship. 473; generally, see 22. Vin. Abr. 406; Bac. Abr. Master, &c., H; Marsh. Ins. 89; 2 Lill. Abr. 677; Peters' Dig. Admiralty, pl. 231, et seq.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
COMPENSATION, contracts. A reward for services rendered.
Which is why we find today,
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary © 2000
Main Entry: in·come
Pronunciation: 'in-"k&m also 'in-k&m or 'i[ng]-k&m
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a coming in : , <fluctuations in the nutrient income of a body of water>
2 : a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time <has an income of $20,000 a year>
An unfortunate reality many fail to understand.
With regard to lawyers in general??? One words sums them up, quite neatly: parasites.
Sheesh, some people will believe anything.
That's why so many astronauts only have Associate degrees in Arc-Welding.
"gain" is a profit.
Yep:
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
GAIN. The word is used as synonymous with profits.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
PROFITS. In general, by this term is understood the benefit which a man derives from a thing. It is more particularly applied to such benefit as arises from his labor and skill
since salaries and wages are considered an equitable exchange for work performed
One does not work for another without gain? You might, not me.
The computation of "taxable income", includes the reduction of "gross income" by personal exemption and allowed deductions to determine the gain/profit upon which you are taxed. In fact if your income is less than the personal exemption and standard deduction there is no tax, nor even a requirement to file.
You selfserving limiting definition does not help you one whit when wages exceed the threshold requirements to file and pay in the Courtroom where it counts.
Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:
Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable income and lost.
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the income tax is a taking and lost.
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
Argued that wages are untaxable, that the income tax is voluntary and lost
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Argued that federal reserve notes are not taxable income and lost
United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261 (M.D. Penn. 1996)
Argued that "income" under the Sixteenth Amendment is limited to profit proceeding from property and lost.
Why should I have to pay a higher rate than the non-producers?
Because congress has the authority to do that under the Constitution.
Why should one man be levied a duty on alcoholic beverages just because he drinks them, and another not have to pay the tax just because he doesn't drink them.
Equal "protection" of the law, does not mean equal outcome with no regard to circumstance.
yep.
Yeah... and stare decisis no longer applies, when judges and activist lawyers- like you- decide to follow an activist viewpoint, rather than the law as decided before you were born...
And the absolute ARROGANCE to say lawyers and judges determine the law??? Lawyers are supposed to argue the merits of the law as it applies to their clients, and judges determine whether those arguments have merit. If you truly believe what you stated above, you truly are a parasite on society...
Ever wonder why people look at the legal system with such contempt???? A system which, I might add, is so blatant in that it doesn't give a rats @ss about justice- as demonstrated by lawyers like YOU?
You have demonstrated that you're part of that system, AND part of the problem.
I hope that sits well with you... A profession without integrity or honor... Well, if you don't become a judge, maybe you'll be a politician, since it's all the same to you...
There is no way possible, to sufficiently express my absolute contempt for you.
Coming from a lawyer??? Gee, I don't what to say... except THANKS!!!!!
Too bad you're too blinded by (pick any or all)
1. Greed
2. Unbridled arrogance
3. Your values being for sale to the highest bidder
4. Believing in "situational" ethics
Oh yeah, you're just the one to talk about "nonsense" for cash. Why don't you just admit you're a prostitute??? At least for the "ladies of the evening," they don't have such pretentions as you...
Like I said, words fail to describe what a contemptible, sorry piece of work you truly are....
You make the law...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.