Simkanin guilty of 29 counts of tax violations

Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^ | 1/8/2004 | Max Baker

[tpaine]

Geezer is simply spamming the thread with the agit-prop basis for the so-called regulatatory 'law' on this issue.
No one disputes that they exist. Their constitutionality is disputed.

[Hon]

"the so-called regulatatory 'law' on this issue."

It's obvious you don't have a clue here. Geezer and I have been citing the US Code. Geezer has also cited SCOTUS and other court decisions. None of these are "regulatory" law.

Your other remarks on what you imagine to be court procedures also make it abundantly obvious you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

[ASA.Ranger]

Ref: "The 14th authorizes an income tax, not withholding."

Thanks for pointing me correctly.

You are right. SOTUS affirms the 14th. I perceive that withholding is an expedient administrative process for FICA and Income Tax withholding hitched a ride. Trust funds became an evil to the employer as a result. Employers do become involuntary 'agents' and may be held personally liable by the piercing the 'corporate veil' if necessary.

The IRS is also responsible for administrating Social Security's Section 218; another mess from Congress dating back to the inception of FICA.

Simkanin probably had things explained to him as if he were a six year old by multiple Revenue Officers, Agents and IRS Management. They just want to close the case. Simkanin chose to test the system in the courts.

I am in frequent contact with my Reps begging them to simplify the mess. I am appalled that this mess is legal. We must endure taxation. Therefore, we should encourage our Reps to simplify and lessen the burden on individuals and businesses.

[tpaine]

See #127.

[Lurking Libertarian]

No one disputes that they exist.

tpaine, meet Gargantua.

Their constitutionality is disputed.

If so, Simkanin can argue that on appeal; it's not a jury question. But the SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of withholding.

[sinkspur]

Their constitutionality is disputed.

Only by the Schiffs, Schulzs and various tax protest groups.

And tpaine and those who don't like the way the Supreme Court ruled on such stuff.

[ancient_geezer]

Geezer is simply spamming the thread with the agit-prop basis for the so-called regulatatory 'law' on this issue.

What regulatory law is that? The Public Law (that which has been enacted into law by Congress) as regards the income tax and witholding thereof has been held to be quite constitutional and to be enforcable upon the individual citizen:

No one disputes that they exist.

I would hope not for they are to be found in the public record in US Statutes and organized in the published volumes US Code Title 23.

Though the evidence of this thread shows there are many who would pretend to doubt the existence of such laws:

spacewarp: "because they couldn't find a criminal code he was in violation of, so they just charged him with failure to comply."

gargantua: "Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist? "

sopwith: "Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist?"
Okay, you say (pretend to know...?) that it does exist. Chapter and verse of the Code, please."

 

Their constitutionality is disputed.

Only by those in denial, certainly not by the Supreme Court.

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"

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."

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"

COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)

• "[T]he principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and therefore has the power to make the benefit complete. Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen."

 

BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124,136 (1929)

• "Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken as direct, this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of our government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.
  
  It is a tax laid only upon the exercise of a single one of those powers incident to ownership, the power to give the property owned to another. . . . The persistence of this distinction and the justification for it rest upon the historic fact that taxes of this type were not understood to be direct taxes when the Constitution was adopted and, as well, upon the reluctance of this Court to enlarge by construction, limitations upon the sovereign power of taxation by Article 1, sec. 8, so vital to the maintenance of the National Government.
  280 U.S. at 136; see The Federalist No. 12 (Hamilton) (distinguishing between "direct taxes" and "taxes on consumption")."

Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:

• "The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."

• "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "

U.S. v. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)

• " The United States has the power to levy excises upon occupations, and to classify them for this purpose; and need look only to the fact of the exercise of the occupation or calling taxed, regardless of whether such exercise is permitted or prohibited by the laws of the United States or by those of a state. The burden of the tax may be imposed alike on the just and the unjust."

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

[Hon]

"I am in frequent contact with my Reps begging them to simplify the mess. I am appalled that this mess is legal."

There is a real catch-22 here. If the tax laws were more simple, people would complain that they are too vague. What is the meaning of "income"? they would ask.

When the laws try to cover every jot and tittle, the same people complain that they are just too complicated.

It is the tax evaders themselves who have forced the laws to become so complicated. Without them the laws could be much more simple.

[spacewarp]

Sink, if you look at the facts of the case, you will see very simply that the government had what could arguably be a strong case if it was presented fairly. If it was presented as fact with law being cited and the rules of a fair and impartial judiciary. If they had presented that case, and won, they would have eliminated the "tax protester" movement once and for all, because they would have presented in open court their case. But, when you start to look at the way they went about it, and see that they did back-room deals, judge shopping and practiced judicial abuse, then you start to realize that they had no real case. The whole thing falls apart. So, since I don't buy Schulz's stuff, and you seem to have a personal vendetta against him, then how about you listen to someone who has the right dog in the fight. I don't like taxes any more than anyone else. I pay them. I put Under Protest on them in the vague hope that some day I may be able to get something back because I didn't quietly surrender my freedom. Our tax burden has become worse and worse each year. We get the occasional tax break, which is nice that they graciously allow us to have back a small pittance each year of what we earn.

There's a reason there's witholding. And it should be stopped. And if there's a violation of the constitution, they may stop it. The reason is simple. If every person who earned money had to send a check to the feds each week or month to give Caeser what is Caeser's, then there would be a revolt in about 6-10 weeks. If we could cut the costs of production by eliminating the income tax, we'd probably be able to break even with a 10-11% flat tax. That's much better, but still not good enough.

We need to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse at all levels of government. And that doesn't come easy. It's "advanced citizenship". If we could eliminate 50% of the fraud, waste and abuse in 75% of the government, we'd probably be able to knock that 10-11% down to 1-2%. If we could eliminate 10% of the extra-constitutional government we could actually be past all the income tax. The problem is that it's ingrained and the attitude that they are the masters and we are the slaves runs very deep in government. And the abuses of this judge, the DOJ prosecutors and the IRS agents is just one more sign of a very corrupt, rotten to the core, government that needs major overhaul.

Paul

[Hon]

"But, when you start to look at the way they went about it, and see that they did back-room deals, judge shopping and practiced judicial abuse, then you start to realize that they had no real case."

LOL!

[sinkspur]

Sink, if you look at the facts of the case, you will see very simply that the government had what could arguably be a strong case if it was presented fairly. If it was presented as fact with law being cited and the rules of a fair and impartial judiciary.

Fair? Facts? Law?

The "facts" were presented, with 13 witnesses who testified that Simkanin had been told he was in violation of the law. I don't know who those witnesses were, but one of them was likely somebody from the IRS who told him that he had to obey the law and what that law was.

A "fair" representation of the case for the tax protesters would have been to put the IRS on the stand, to put the IRS on trial, so that Simkanin and his sycophantic, Manson-like followers could boo and hiss at every utterance from them.

You are angry about the tax code, and you should be. But you have never ONCE mentioned your own congressman as a potential object of your ire.

You want withholding eliminated? GET CONGRESS TO DO IT!

You want a flat tax? PUSH YOUR CONGRESSMAN TO SPONSOR IT!

Turning the courtroom into a circus tent makes those who have legitimate complaints look like clowns.

[tpaine]

Geezer is simply spamming the thread with the agit-prop basis for the so-called regulatatory 'law' on this issue.

What regulatory law is that? The Public Law (that which has been enacted into law by Congress) as regards the income tax and witholding thereof has been held to be quite constitutional and to be enforcable upon the individual citizen:

That issue exactly is what is disputed, and is what the defendant wanted to tell the jury..
That is the point of this thread.
No one disputes that these 'laws' exist.

I would hope not for they are to be found in the public record in US Statutes and organized in the published volumes US Code Title 23. Though the evidence of this thread shows there are many who would pretend to doubt the existence of such laws:
spacewarp: "because they couldn't find a criminal code he was in violation of, so they just charged him with failure to comply."
gargantua: "Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist? "
sopwith: "Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist?" Okay, you say (pretend to know...?) that it does exist. Chapter and verse of the Code, please."
  Their constitutionality is disputed. Only by those in denial, certainly not by the Supreme Court.

Many, if not most responsible people admit that the income tax 'codes' are insane.
Those who defend them are the ones in denial.

[verity]

Yes, resistance to tyranny is always foolish

Not necessarily! IMHO, one has to avoid lose-lose situations: Do not kick a grizzly in the butt. ;~)

[ancient_geezer]

There's a reason there's witholding.

Agreed

BARAL v. UNITED STATES, 172 F. 3d 918; affirmed SCOTUS 98-1667 (Feb 22, 2000)

• "Contrary to Baral's claim, the withholding tax and estimated tax are not taxes in their own right (separate from the income tax), that are converted into income tax only on the income tax return. Rather, they are methods for collecting income taxes."

And it should be stopped.

So should all taxes collected on income or wages, but not be cause the Congress lacks the power to do so, but rather because there are better methods of taxation more conducive to a free nation:

Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

• It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.

And if there's a violation of the constitution, they may stop it.

Big if, especially as witholding has been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times, and always upheld where the liability of the employer to remit such witholding on behalf of employees is in question.

The basis of witholding as a method of tax collection simply is incontestable.

PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433

• "Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government."

[Hon]

As you surely know, Simkanin knew he was in violation of the law. He bragged about his defiance.

Simkanin didn't withhold though the US code clearly requires him to do so and the law has been repeatedly upheld as Constitutional.

Simkanin tried to collect a quarter of a million dollars in refunds for taxes he never filed. Funny, none of the "tax protestors" ever mention that.

Simkanin is a crook who is finally on his way to jail. It is a victory of the rule of law. It is a victory for our system of representative government.

Many if not most of the leading "tax protestors" hate this country. They seek to destroy it by attacking our citizens' tax compliance, which is the envy of the world.

They are worse than just plain kooks or con artists. They certainly are not the "patriots" they claim to be.

[spacewarp]

Thank you very much for that detailed information Geezer. This is exactly what Sinkspur was avoiding either finding or admitting to not knowing off the top of his head (not knowing something is not necessarily bad, but not seeing that you don't is usually a very bad thing Sink.)

And the big $64,000 question.....

If in less than 1 day, Ancient_Geezer could find this caselaw and present it in this forum, then why couldn't the IRS present even 1/10th of this? The attitude is arrogance and abuse. Still a problem. Even if they are as right as possible about the law, their attitude and actions create a bitter problem that still must be addressed.

Paul

[spacewarp]

Again, thank you. Why is it you can find it and the IRS couldn't find it with both hands and a flashlight?

Why is it that the judge didn't insist that the IRS agents list the section of the code that closes that argument?

Why is it that the DOJ prosecutor didn't just stand up and read that one section of code, and put up just some of that case law provided a few minutes ago by Geezer?

Why do our government representatives believe that they are so far above us that they don't have to answer to us or follow the same rules they make us follow?

That's the main thing that gets me ticked off on this topic.

Paul

[Hon]

"If in less than 1 day, Ancient_Geezer could find this caselaw and present it in this forum, then why couldn't the IRS present even 1/10th of this? The attitude is arrogance and abuse. Still a problem. Even if they are as right as possible about the law, their attitude and actions create a bitter problem that still must be addressed."

You don't know what you are talking about. The IRS explained the law to Simkanin numerous times. An IRS agent testified in the trial about his attempts to explain the law to Simkanin. He was one of many who tried.

Simkanin's own employees, including his accounts, explained the law to him. They showed it to him. They also testified to this in the trial.

And again, it isn't case law. It is in the US Code. It would take Simkanin or any idiot who can use the internet or read a book five seconds to find it.

Simkanin knew he was in violation. Do you think he tried to get a refund of $235,000 in taxes when he hadn't paid any, accidentally?

[ancient_geezer]

Many, if not most responsible people admit that the income tax 'codes' are insane.

As a matter of personal opinion, yes.

As a matter of law, they exist, they are within the authority of Congress to enact, and they have been repeatedly upheld and found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. From the first statute regarding income taxes the Courts have made it clear what must be done to remove these "insane" statutes.

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."

"[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."

"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

• "'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56]   he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

• "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "

 

So get after your Congress critter's already, there is where both the problem and the solution lay. Not bust one's brains out against the brick wall of the Courts.

Those who defend them are the ones in denial.

Who is defending the income/payroll taxes? The law is what it is, change should be made, but the courts are not the answer to that. Legislation and Constitutional amendment are.

John Linder (R Georgia) offers a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement:

H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
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: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

I suggest you start putting your efforts into changing the law instead of railing against it to no end.

[templar]

It is not the place of a jury to decide constitutionality. Not according to the constitution, anyway

Correct. That decision is, ultimately, reserved to the USSC by the Constitution.

Hopefully, this guy brought up any constitutional issues to the court during his trial, even if the court rejected them, so that they will be open to apellate review. Otherwise he's out of luck. IMO, all controversial (and even non controversial) legal actions should be set up to win on appeal, not at trial. This way a win at trial ends it but a loss still has the possibility of an ultimate win..