"It means we can be free from the IRS!"
Posted on 08/27/2005 3:10:16 PM PDT by Shamino
I have a few questions for the FairTax experts to answer! Beyond section 1 of HR25, where it repeals the existing Income Tax legislation, after reading further into the bill...
I think tax scofflaws should be prosecuted under any system.
Well, whaddya know...the "fair tax" goons LIED about that part. Fancy that!
"Papers, please?" "Receipt, please?"
And it's a sure bet that the ILLEGAL ALIENS will be exempt from any enforcement of this law as well. So we end up getting nailed *twice* for this crap.
What supreme idiocy this "fair tax" crap is shaping up to be.
And it's a sure bet that the ILLEGAL ALIENS will be exempt from any enforcement of this law as well.Illegal aliens would pay the NST too. If, for some reason, they were audited and didn't a have a receipt maybe they would be deported.
I doubt it. They don't have to provide documentation that they're even citizens. What makes you think anyone's going to hold their feet to the fire to make them prove the stuff they buy has had the NRST applied to it? Sakes...
What makes you think anyone's going to hold their feet to the fire to make them prove the stuff they buy has had the NRST applied to it?I know illegal aliens work at WalMart. I'm guessing they shop there too. WalMart would be a large target if it was suspected of not remitting sales tax. I doubt a new tax enforcement agency would go after the purchaser and his grocery receipt from WalMart and not WalMart itself, whether he is a citizen or not.
Why? Why would an illegal buy a car in the US, when they can go to Mexico and buy the same car without the 30% tax added on.
The FairTax marketing would suggest that each worker earns a gross pay or 100%. Under the existing system we, of course, have many taxes taken out off the top, including social security.
The government originally (fraudulently) called the Social Security an Insurance, with "benefits." When in reality this ponzi scheme is a "security." By creating social security account, what is really happening is that the government has created a legal fiction, a corporation, for people to use, without our knowledge. WHY? Because they can legally tax the property income of a corporation with an excise tax! They cannot tax the sovereign's property income with an excise tax, it can only be done with a direct tax, according to the Constitution. And you voluntarily apply for and use that SS number on everything that you do! The government makes it very difficult for people to live without having one in todays world. It is tied to all income you receive and voluntarily report on tax returns! When you file a tax return, you are declaring that you, the U.S. citizen (corporate property) had income, and corporate property income is taxable with an excise tax!
So...does HR25 remove this extraction of pay from employee wages with the new sales tax in order to fund social security, or does SS get funded by taking off the top 7 percent of the 23% tax on sale of goods?
If i'm reading the HR25 definitions correctly, it would suggest that an employee's own pay is considered a service and also subject to the same 23% tax.
Sounds like a nice government bait and switch move to me!
So...does HR25 remove this extraction of pay from employee wages with the new sales tax in order to fund social security, or does SS get funded by taking off the top 7 percent of the 23% tax on sale of goods?
HR25, repeals the SS/Medicare tax on wages, both the employer and employee's side as well.
The retail sales tax implemented by the legislation provides the funding for SS/Medicare instead.
If i'm reading the HR25 definitions correctly, it would suggest that an employee's own pay is considered a service and also subject to the same 23% tax.
You're not reading it correctly, this is a retail sales tax systeml, not an income tax system.
The bill expressly excludes labor for which wages are paid by normal employers from the definition of taxable "Service" and excludes any employers engaged in trade or business from the term "taxable employers" who would be the ones required to pay any tax on a contracted service paid as a wage.
As can be seen clearly in the legislation a normal employee's labor is not considered a service subject subject to 23% retail sales tax thus no tax is levied on the wage paid to him/her by an employer. Businesses do not pay the retail sales tax on their employees wages.
Employees in their hat as consumers however pay retail sales taxes out of what they spend for their personal consumption, no matter where the funds for that consumption expenditure may come from.
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
SEC. 2(a) (14) TAXABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICE-
`(12) TAXABLE EMPLOYER-
|
Sounds like a nice government bait and switch move to me!
Looks more like you are trying to scare yourself, than any bait & switch to me.
Why would an illegal buy a car in the US, when they can go to Mexico and buy the same car without the 30% tax added onThey probably wouldn't. They still would buy their groceries at WalMart and pay at least a portion of the taxes that are due under a NST.
How many illegal aliens that are hired "under the table" currently fill out a 1040 income tax form? None, I would suspect. That is 100% noncompliance.
I prefer that they pay some tax over no taxes at all.
That makes some sense, but what are they doing with social security then? Is the social security withholding provisions only applying to Taxable Employers and Federal Government employees, and like the existing code sections read, withholding of tax is applied only to those who work in the four US island possessions and D.C.? What about the millions of Americans who currently have withheld SS(many against their will) and will apparently receive benefits, but are not by definition "federal employees.?"
This witholding under the existing system was written to be voluntary in nature, except for those described above who work under federal possessions. The code has been misapplied, misrepresented and employers intimidated into witholding and paying a tax that simply does not apply to businesses and employees in the regular course of trade. Would it not make sense then if they were truely "simplifying" the tax code to also simplify it by removing the concept of withholding alltogether as well as social security and apply the strict letter of the constitution to whatever new tax is devised? Or at least include a provision that once and for all allows the government to grant immunity to individuals from prosecution if they wish to terminate their social security numbers and end withholding from their pay!
History:
1935 - Social Security begins (Subtitle C - Employment taxes) and those who voluntarily take a number and provide it to an employer voluntarily subject their wages to tax. This begins the withholding of tax from U.S. citizens, but not for income tax purposes ( under Subtitle A), just for Social Security (Subtitle C). The W-4 (or its predecessor) provides a legal authority for the withholding of employment tax from the citizen by the EMPLOYER. The use of W-4s originates under Sec. 3402. Income Tax Collected at Source, subsection (p) - Voluntary Withholding Agreements. This Form becomes the legal basis and ONLY legal authority in the U.S. Code under which the withholding of tax from U.S. citizens is authorized. Social security taxes are now withheld from wages.
1944 - Present. The victory tax is repealed and the authority to withhold (federal income) tax expires with it, but the withholding of tax continues after Form W-4 is modified to include a voluntary request to "claim a number of deductions". This of course relates to income tax, NOT Social Security (or employment taxes under Subtitle C). The W-4 is now a voluntary withholding agreement that covers BOTH Employment taxes AND Income taxes, which are withheld at the voluntary request (on the W-4) made by the employee. However, under the law, ONLY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AS "TRANSFEREES", ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE A "RETURN OF INCOME" (KICKBACK) to the Treasury as a result of their "employment". (read IRS HUMBUG - The BEST book on the Market !) The W-2 is to be accepted by the IRS as a SUBSTITUTE FORM 1040 (see Form W-2 Can Substitute For A Form 1040 !!).
It should be carefully noted that Employers are authorized BY STATUTE to withhold EMPLOYMENT taxes under Subtitlle C (26 USC 3402) from those who participate in Social Security and have provided a number, and authorized BY REQUEST (on the W-4 under 26 USC 3402(p)) to withhold INCOME tax (imposed in Subtitle A) from citizens. The STATUTORY authority to withhold INCOME tax is granted to WITHHOLDING AGENTS under Subtitle A, NOT EMPLOYERS. The definition of a "withholding agent" is provided in Sec. 7701. Withholding Agent & Definitions, where the agent is authorized to deduct and withhold from foreigners, and only foreigners, exactly as the tax was authorized and collected for the first 16 years (1916-1932) of its existence as an excise tax (under the 16th).
If you believe tha t Sec. 1. Tax Imposed establishes LIABILITY, you need to read it more closely. It imposes a tax on "taxable income", but does not mention liability. If Section 1 creates liability, who is liable ? Where does it say that ? The truth is that 26 CFR 602.101 - The Form Required reveals the true extent of any liability that may be imposed under Section 1 as being limited to a liability for "taxable income", earned in foreign countries under foreign tax treaties, which is a PRIVILEGED source of income and, therefore, subject to the indirect excise income tax.
As for a person's personal situation, workers for private enterprise are not by definition "employees", unless you work for the government. If you do not use a Social Security number in association with earnings, the IRS has no way to follow and no statutory authority over you as an "employee." I am sure that you are aware that taxes are not withheld from 1099 earnings, unless they relate to a foreigner. Similar with 1040. Since the statutory authority to withhold income tax is limited to withholding agents (over foreigners, as shown by 7701(a)(16))
My point is with the way HR25 is written since it is keeping the concept of paying for social security under a new taxation as if SS is some sort of legal benefit, which maintains this culture of fraud and deception upon the sovereign workers of America. Would the same reasoning not apply in its application of authority over workers who maintain their claims on social security, who maintain their numbers and therefore are regarded as "Taxable Employees" by the Social Security Administration?
Would this same manner of imposing authority over business not be maintained, to not only maintain this crazy SS status quo, but enforced by the new Taxing Authority this bill will create?
Should not something in HR25 be written to make it perfectly clear to individuals about their rights to participate in Social Security or not, and how that affects their withholding? Otherwise, how would a worker under HR25 truely earn a 100% wage?
That makes some sense, but what are they doing with social security then?
You apparently aren't bothering to actually read the legislation.
Of the 23 percentage points in the NRST implemented by the legislation, 14.91 are specifically for general revenues, while in the first year the remaining 8.01 points are earmarked specifically to SS/Medicare trust funds.
Thereafter, the percentage earmarked for SS/Medicare is kept lockstep with that amount of taxes that is required by the Social Security Act based on any change wagebase for those trust funds.
Refer:
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
`CHAPTER 9--ADDITIONAL MATTERS
|
What about the millions of Americans who currently have withheld SS(many against their will) and will apparently receive benefits, but are not by definition "federal employees.?"
They will get benefits as provided for in the Social Security Act, based on their reported wages just as it is now. The only thing that for Social Security or Medicare either one is the funding for them is by specific earmarking of revenues to be paid directly to the trust funds, instead of being appropriated annually out of General Revenues as it is today in 42 USC 401.
Social Security benefits will calculated based on reported wages just as they are now.
This witholding under the existing system was written to be voluntary in nature, except for those described above who work under federal possessions.
Whatever you want to believe dude.
SS/Medicare taxes today are paid into general revenues as an excise on employers for half and a tax on wage income for the other half, not earmarked in anyway, straight into Congresses bid pot for general spending. That is the problem of SS/Medicare taxes now, they get spent for largess and buy votes and have no relation to what is coming out in terms of SS/Medicare benefits which are funded by annual appropriations.
Should not something in HR25 be written to make it perfectly clear to individuals about their rights to participate in Social Security or not, and how that affects their withholding?
There is no witholding for Social Security under HR25, revenue for funding said program is earmarked out of the NRST implemented by the legislation on the basis of the size SS/Medicare wage bases.
Otherwise, how would a worker under HR25 truely earn a 100% wage?
With no witholding he gets his contracted gross pay. That's it. Wages paid reported to SSA for purposes of calculating benefit as provided for in the Social Security Act today.
My point is with the way HR25 is written since it is keeping the concept of paying for social security under a new taxation as if SS is some sort of legal benefit, which maintains this culture of fraud and deception upon the sovereign workers of America
Should not something in HR25 be written to make it perfectly clear to individuals about their rights to participate in Social Security or not, and how that affects their withholding?.Your agument about SS is well taken but doesn't jibe with reality. I doesn't matter how you interpret the law as it was written and how it differs from how it is applied today. That is a different issue from a NST. The NST bill, as I understand it, will keep the same amount of money going to the same programs as it does now. It doesn't make a value judgment on the worth or legality of any government program.
I agree with you that SS "reform" is badly needed. It would not be included in a NST bill. Replacing the current tax code is nearly suicide for most politicians anyway. I doubt they would want to include SS reform at the same time
So they only apply the withholding to federal workers, eh? Only for domestic servants, eh?
You do know what a sale tax is don't you. The tax in both cases is paid and remitted by the purchaser of those services, not the individual receiving the wage.
No wage withholding period withholding is taken from the wage earner, not he payer. That is a pure excise the same as the employer excise that exists today.
Oh, you think Social Security was ever a Trust fund with benefits?
Nope, it is pure largess paid of out of an annual allocation from general revenues.
All payroll taxes are paid direictly into general revenues today and spent as such.
Title 26 US Code Subtitle A Chapter 2 Sec. 1401. Rate of tax
- (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance In addition to other taxes, there shall be imposed for each taxable year, on the self-employment income of every individual, a tax equal to the following percent of the amount of the self-employment income for such taxable year: ***
- (b) Hospital insurance In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there shall be imposed for each taxable year, on the self-employment income of every individual, a tax equal to the following percent of the amount of the self-employment income for such taxable year: ***
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3101. Rate of tax
- (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) - ***
- (b) Hospital insurance
In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) - ***Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3111. Rate of tax
- (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section ) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section )— ***
- (b) Hospital insurance In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section ) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section )— ***
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3501. Collection and payment of taxes
- (a) General rule
The taxes imposed by this subtitle shall be collected by the Secretary and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal-revenue collections.
Title 26 US Code Subtitle F Chapter 80 Sec. 7809. Deposit of collections
- (a) General rule Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and in sections 7651, 7652, 7654, and 7810, the gross amount of all taxes and revenues received under the provisions of this title, and collections of whatever nature received or collected by authority of any internal revenue law, shall be paid daily into the Treasury of the United States under instructions of the Secretary as internal revenue collections,
Any trust fund in government currently is nothing more than an accounting gimmick
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/em940.cfm
|
Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted. |
In reality, and under the existing system, the Feds don't even have the jurisdiction to require withholding much less apply a direct tax on wages, which is what most Americans were corralled to sign up for under the guise of receiving "benefits" and "doing their patriotic duty."
LOL, you can believe that one right into jail if you wish. Since withholding is nothing more than a method of payment who cares, the tax liablity is the same regardless how you might "choose" to pay it.
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."
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
I agree we should throw out the existing tax system in its entirety, and put the Gov. on a diet of Tariffs! ;)
Good luck, don't see any Congress Critters sponsoring that one in any bill, much less supporting the idea. Or do you figure on doing that somehow without invoking the legislative powers of Congress to get it enacted.
However this thread was supposedly about what the FairTax legislation, HR25 is about, not revamping the entire government and every program in it, whether good or bad.
You want to discuss HR25, I'm here. You want to discuss the deficiencies of the Social Security System start a thread on that. I guarantee you will get alot of interested folks on that one.
If you want to fund government on tariffs, well good luck.
Don't see that one coming down the pike anytime soon.
If the tax system doesn't fit neatly into the framework of the constitution, then (no matter how politically correct) it shouldn't exist!
Agreed, however excises and duties applied uniformly throughout the United States, are well within the bounds of the Constitution:
Constitution for the United States of America:
- 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; "
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:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;
whether they be required of individuals or businesses.
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;"
Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;
- There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.
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;
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution." "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states," "[T]he 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."
The entire existing income tax and associated payroll taxes were imposed by use of legislation gymnastics, after years of failing to apply a direct tax on individual income in the courts.
The issue of lack of jurisdiction and its support in the law is well documented. Jurisdiction that they can only claim occurs when Employers offer such government programs like social security and the employees accept it. Furthermore, the 16th Amendment (which was not only improperly ratified) does not permit taxation without uniform apportionment--at least a 23% sales tax is uniform!
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Documents/StatementBeliefs2Up26pgs.PDF
http://www.paynoincometax.com/pdf/motiontodismiss052205.pdf
http://paynoincometax.com/pdf/301_final_motion_no_offenses_charged.pdf
The issue of lack of jurisdiction and its support in the law is well documented.
Sure nuff, unfortunately the documentation is not worth a hill of beans for its contextual errors and outright fraudulent representation. Won't do a bit of good in the courts where it acually counts for anything.
However that may be, HR25 is applied as an excise paid by the purchaser for final use or consumption of taxable property and services, and is not a tax on income paid by the receiver thereof, so all the documentation in the world about income taxes true or false is totally aside the point.
As far as the income tax is concerned:
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.
TP'r : One who's tax evasion sales pitch and argument has the value of used toilette paper.
I agree we're a bit off subject....
If the intent of HR25's withholding article is for the purposes of assessing social security benefits (to whatever extent this illusion of "benefit" outweighs its political function of maintaing an existing tax on productivity), to what purpose would there even be a need for the bill to redefine a wage and salary as a "service," considering the new tax is applied only as an excise on the transaction or sale of new goods and services, not an extraction of income?
How can the FairTax rhetoric be honest about the 100% wage claim when one: the statement above can easily assume the term "service" is open for misapplication, allowing wages defined as services to be taxed as one; and Two: even Dale Jorgensen (Harvard Economist) has admitted that his calculations on the study of HR25 were based on "net pay" not "gross pay." Thus, workers wouldn't necessarily see an automatic increase in salary, however would be eligible for the prebate. In either case, this isn't a 100% wage!
Under HR25, if the only type of individual who will be required to withhold and also to receive SS benefits are those categorized as "taxable employees" and those to remit the tax are "taxable employers," which are defined as government entities, why would a Federal Employee even have a need to have his pay withheld for assessment purposes when his own employer is (supposedly) government? Why would they assess themselves? Can they not simply look at their existing record or submit pay stubs to verify such benefits? Why is the concept of withholding even necessary? If this is not the case, and withholding is truely applied accross the board to all businesses that have had this 73 year policy of withholding per Social Security Act (thus, maintaining the status quo) how does this equate with the FairTax rhetoric--when in reality nothing will change? Keep in mind, under the existing legislation a "taxable employee" is someone with a social security number, under HR25 it only defines them as a Federal Employee (are all soverign Americans who were required to obtain a SS number at birth now Federal peons?! I believe we have a constitution against Federal peonage, even if its voluntary lol.
I understand the 14/8% split, where 8% will go to fund Social Security (or so the Fairtax studies imply), but what is the reality of the legislation on this regarding the above issues of withholding?
"It means we can be free from the IRS!"
By the way,
The court case you cited is old...there are a number of new ones recently (including ones filed by former IRS officers) where they actually won in court. Court cases can be won or lost, and if you know anything about the history of the Tax Court, you will discover it's not only a sham court to begin with, but few of them follow due process and automatically rule in favor of the IRS without even hearing evidence, conducting cross examinations, presenting witnesses, arguing or even producing facts to discredit the suit filed by the protesters, and the like. No evidence...they just throw it out as "frivolous," without explanation, or use the 1040's against the plantiff and get him on perjury. The one who ends up winning is usually the one with the bigger bank account!
My last post included links to two recent cases; the associated websites include past and present cases that support the premise of Fraud and lack of jurisdiction per statue.
Nice picture....lol..If only I were related! lol
It would be nice to shut down the IRS...as long as any new tax doesn't simply recreate the organization under a different name. We want to burn the dirty socks, not just wash them, recolor, rename and put them on different feet--they will likely stink just the same in a few years! lol.
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.