Posted on 04/13/2007 1:08:43 PM PDT by SmithL
SANTA CRUZ -- Tax time is here again -- for most people, anyway.
Risking frozen bank accounts and even jail time, some are refusing to pay the portion of their federal income tax they believe goes to support the military and the war in Iraq. Although the IRS doesn't release information about the number of tax scofflaws -- and local accounts say they are few -- some in Santa Cruz do defy the taxman.
Scott Kennedy, in fact, has been doing it for 30 years. Kennedy, 59, a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War, has not paid a full federal tax bill since the 1970s as his way to protest war and object to the billions of dollars spent by the U.S. government on bolstering defense.
"It's a valid moral stance," said Kennedy, a former Santa Cruz mayor.
"To me, it's not just an extraordinary waste of resources, but withholding taxes is part of the effort to build a more humane world community. We're happy to pay taxes for a good purpose."
Kennedy estimates that 50 percent of his federal taxes goes to the military, and he withholds that money from the check he sends the IRS when filing his return. He includes a letter explaining his actions. However, the IRS often catches up with Kennedy and demands repayment.
On a few occasions, Kennedy has had his bank accounts seized. The IRS recently garnished Kennedy's wages, which resulted in forcing his employer, the Resource Center for Nonviolence, to pay $1,548 in unpaid federal income taxes, interest and penalties for 2005. The Resource Center complied with the IRS order by issuing a check in the full amount. The money will be taken from Kennedy's wages.
Local accountants say the number of tax resisters such as Kennedy is actually pretty small. Santa Cruz tax accountant Everett Meisser says none of his clients attempt to dodge the IRS, although plenty of them are procrastinators and file for extensions.
"I've never encountered someone who asks for war tax resistance," Meisser said.
There is no law that permits taxpayers to refuse to file a tax return or not pay taxes based on an estimate of what the government spends on programs or policies with which they disagree on moral, ethical, religious or other grounds.
The courts have repeatedly rejected arguments made by tax dodgers, said Jesse Weller, a San Francisco-based spokesman for the IRS.
"Ultimately, each of us is responsible for what is on our tax return," Weller said.
"And those who don't pay their fair share increase the taxes for everyone else who file an honest and accurate return."
Still, Santa Cruz resident Alexander Gaguine is withholding $5,000 from the amount he owes the federal government this year. As he's done for the past two years, Gaguine, 57, is protesting what he sees as the "illegal war" in Iraq through his refusal to pay what he owes the government.
"If everyone stopped paying for it, we'd come home from there," he said. "I just think it's an immoral war, an illegal war."
Gaguine also had a lien put on his bank account by the IRS and has been forced to pay interest and stiff penalties.
"I didn't respond to their warnings," Gaguine said.
Penalties for snubbing tax payments can include up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines, depending on how the crime is classified.
Wrong yet again.
You got any evidence that any part of the compilation known as the United States Code is an any way different than the underlying duly passed and signed legislation from which the USC is compiled? Specifically 26 USC?
Of course you don't because 26 USC precisely and exactly reflects the statutes as passed and signed into law.
backpeddled [sic]
I've backpedalled on exactly nothing.
I'll wait for you to make an actual argument instead of spouting gibberish, but I don't hold out much hope that it'll ever happen.
Ron Paul may not be everyone’s cup of tea but he’s got more integrity in one of his whiskers than you could ever hope to have. He can win elections on a regular basis because he is credible. You’d be lucky to get your dog to vote for you if you had a dog that could vote.
And Ron Paul says in Russo’s film there is no law.
And he’s only one credible person in that film that says the samething. And you call them kooks. You’re the kook and a sassy one at that.
There is no law. you can’t find it, it doesn’t exist. USC is code based on laws that Congress passes and a President signs. There is no law behind the USC sections for the personal income tax.
And on the subject of the personal income tax as a voluntary tax, you said it was never voluntary. Well you can take that up with Sheldon Cohen, a former IRS commissioner and writer of the personal income tax code and now general counsel to the IRS, when he was interviewed in Russo’s film acknowledged the personal income tax was described as voluntary but confused it with the voluntary stopping at a stop sign when there is no traffic cop nearby.
So these are the facts you are up against and yes Russo shows documents and references throughout that anyone can check out.
Yet you call him kook. Man you couldn’t wipe his *ss if you begged to do it. He’s way over you in class.
You’re done scumbag.
Enjoy your little niche job IN THE BUSINESS!
Bye!
Cohen was referring to the fact that you voluntarily self-assess by filing a return. As opposed to the IRS coming to see you and assessing you. Which is exactly what will happen if you don't self-assess. And you think that makes the income tax voluntary?
Not to mention that Cohen is neither a "writer of the personal income tax code" or "now general counsel to the IRS" except perhaps in your deluded mind. Donald Korb is IRS General Counsel and has been for 3 years. Cohen was never a member of Congress. Got any more made-up stuff to cough up?
Paul is a camera-hound who should know better. But, he likes to egg gullible people like you on and he's good at it. He sucked you in, didn't he?
I asked you to cite some, any, inconsistency between the underlying statutes and 26 USC. You couldn't do it. Instead you remain in denial of the existence of the statutes.
For instance, take 26 USC 1, which imposes a tax on taxable income. Here's the list of statutes which you claim don't exist:
Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 5; Pub. L. 88–272, title I, § 111, Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 19; Pub. L. 89–809, title I, § 103(a)(2), Nov. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 1550; Pub. L. 91–172, title VIII, § 803(a), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 678; Pub. L. 95–30, title I, § 101(a), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 127; Pub. L. 95–600, title I, § 101(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2767; Pub. L. 97–34, title I, §§ 101(a), 104 (a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 176, 188; Pub. L. 97–448, title I, § 101(a)(3), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2366; Pub. L. 99–514, title I, § 101(a), title III, § 302(a), title XIV, § 1411(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2096, 2218, 2714; Pub. L. 100–647, title I, §§ 1001(a)(3), 1014 (e)(1)–(3), (6), (7), title VI, § 6006(a), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3349, 3561, 3562, 3686; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §§ 7811(j)(1), 7816 (b), 7831 (a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2411, 2420, 2425; Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, §§ 11101(a)–(c), (d)(1)(A), (2), 11103(c), 11104(b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–403 to 1388–406, 1388–408; Pub. L. 103–66, title XIII, §§ 13201(a), (b)(3)(A), (B), 13202 (a), 13206 (d)(2), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 457, 459, 461, 467; Pub. L. 104–188, title I, § 1704(m)(1), (2), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1882, 1883; Pub. L. 105–34, title III, § 311(a), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 831; Pub. L. 105–206, title V, § 5001(a)(1)–(4), title VI, §§ 6005(d)(1), 6007 (f)(1), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 787, 788, 800, 810; Pub. L. 105–277, div. J, title IV, § 4002(i)(1), (3), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–907, 2681–908; Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 117(b)(1)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–604; Pub. L. 107–16, title I, § 101(a), (c)(1), (2), title III, §§ 301(c)(1), 302 (a), (b), June 7, 2001, 115 Stat. 41, 43, 54; Pub. L. 108–27, title I, §§ 102(a), (b)(1), 104 (a), (b), 105 (a), title III, §§ 301(a)(1), (2)(A), (b)(1), 302 (a), (e)(1), May 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 754, 755, 758, 760, 763; Pub. L. 108–311, title I, § 101(c), (d), title IV, §§ 402(a)(1)–(3), 408(a)(1), (2), Oct. 4, 2004, 118 Stat. 1167, 1168, 1184, 1190; Pub. L. 108–357, title IV, § 413(c)(1), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1506.
All of it passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time.
So, where's even a single inconsistency? Or, do you admit that 26 USC 1 is accurate? That's OK, pick another section and point out where it is inconsistent with the underlying statutes. Pick one, any one, and find an inconsistency.
The USC is a convenience so that you don't have to pick through all of the underlying legislation to figure out what the current law is. USC provisions are admissable in federal court and presumed to be correct absent a specific showing otherwise. Hundreds of people are charged and convicted of criminal violations of 26 USC every year. These people all have lawyers, yet not one of them has ever successfully maintained that there is no valid tax law. But you, an expert in nothing, claim there is no tax law. I saw it in a movie, it must be true!
Unless you can find a provision in 26 USC that doesn't agree with the laws it is based on, you are simply in denial and doing a fine job of demonstrating your abundant, profound and impenetrable ignorance.
Are you going to embarrass yourself further or will you admit that you're full of it and don't have the slightest clue about what you are babbling about?
Russo’s movie features (...) IRS case jurors
Sorry, Russo's idiotic movie contained no interviews with "IRS case jurors." It did contain one interview of a juror on a state tax case. Which certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with any federal law or the IRS, not that that would matter to the clueless.
It was a useful device for a conspirazoid like Russo who wants to fool his audience into thinking that it somehow proves something about the IRS or federal law, which it doesn't. He certainly fooled you, but that's obviously not hard to do.
Why do you keep making things up? Are you really as gullible as you appear to be?
This makes no sense. I'm not surprised.
He's never made any sense. I covered his ridiculous claim about 30 posts back.
Apparently his answer is that because corporate taxes plus borrowing equals defense spending there is some grand conspiracy. Never mind that he first claimed that defense equals corporate taxes alone and always has.
Typical nut-jobbery.
Well said.
But, that's OK, he's impervious to facts.
You're killing yourself. You lied through your teeth that you have no connection with the business and you said it more than once. Anyone that goes back and reads your posts can see you have all the talking points of someone connected to the business.
Cohen was referring to the fact that you voluntarily self-assess by filing a return. As opposed to the IRS coming to see you and assessing you. Which is exactly what will happen if you don't self-assess. And you think that makes the income tax voluntary?
BS and you know it. Here's a section of the Tax Code:
26 CFR Chapter 1 (4-1-03 Edition) (iii) The purpose of publishing revenue rulings and revenue procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin is to promote correct and uniform application of the tax laws by Internal Revenue Service employees and to assist taxpayers in attaining maximum
voluntary
compliance…
the writers of the code could have left out the word 'voluntary'. It is absurd to the most casual reader that the IRS thinks it is 'voluntary' to comply. The consequences of not complying are financial ruin and jail. It's no different than a local gangster pointing a gun at you saying get in the car.
Not to mention that Cohen is neither a "writer of the personal income tax code" or "now general counsel to the IRS" except perhaps in your deluded mind. Donald Korb is IRS General Counsel and has been for 3 years. Cohen was never a member of Congress. Got any more made-up stuff to cough up?
It was never mentioned that Cohen was a member of Congress. He is a former commissioner and general counsel to the IRS and he did write tax code.
Paul is a camera-hound who should know better. But, he likes to egg gullible people like you on and he's good at it. He sucked you in, didn't he?
Ron Paul has integrity. You don't. No further comment needed.
I asked you to cite some, any, inconsistency between the underlying statutes and 26 USC. You couldn't do it. Instead you remain in denial of the existence of the statutes.
For instance, take 26 USC 1, which imposes a tax on taxable income. Here's the list of statutes which you claim don't exist:
Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 5; Pub. L. 88–272, title I, § 111, Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 19; Pub. L. 89–809, title I, § 103(a)(2), Nov. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 1550; Pub. L. 91–172, title VIII, § 803(a), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 678; Pub. L. 95–30, title I, § 101(a), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 127; Pub. L. 95–600, title I, § 101(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2767; Pub. L. 97–34, title I, §§ 101(a), 104 (a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 176, 188; Pub. L. 97–448, title I, § 101(a)(3), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2366; Pub. L. 99–514, title I, § 101(a), title III, § 302(a), title XIV, § 1411(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2096, 2218, 2714; Pub. L. 100–647, title I, §§ 1001(a)(3), 1014 (e)(1)–(3), (6), (7), title VI, § 6006(a), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3349, 3561, 3562, 3686; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §§ 7811(j)(1), 7816 (b), 7831 (a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2411, 2420, 2425; Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, §§ 11101(a)–(c), (d)(1)(A), (2), 11103(c), 11104(b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–403 to 1388–406, 1388–408; Pub. L. 103–66, title XIII, §§ 13201(a), (b)(3)(A), (B), 13202 (a), 13206 (d)(2), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 457, 459, 461, 467; Pub. L. 104–188, title I, § 1704(m)(1), (2), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1882, 1883; Pub. L. 105–34, title III, § 311(a), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 831; Pub. L. 105–206, title V, § 5001(a)(1)–(4), title VI, §§ 6005(d)(1), 6007 (f)(1), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 787, 788, 800, 810; Pub. L. 105–277, div. J, title IV, § 4002(i)(1), (3), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–907, 2681–908; Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 117(b)(1)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–604; Pub. L. 107–16, title I, § 101(a), (c)(1), (2), title III, §§ 301(c)(1), 302 (a), (b), June 7, 2001, 115 Stat. 41, 43, 54; Pub. L. 108–27, title I, §§ 102(a), (b)(1), 104 (a), (b), 105 (a), title III, §§ 301(a)(1), (2)(A), (b)(1), 302 (a), (e)(1), May 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 754, 755, 758, 760, 763; Pub. L. 108–311, title I, § 101(c), (d), title IV, §§ 402(a)(1)–(3), 408(a)(1), (2), Oct. 4, 2004, 118 Stat. 1167, 1168, 1184, 1190; Pub. L. 108–357, title IV, § 413(c)(1), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1506.
All of it passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time.
You conveniently omit that all those source public laws are amendments to the original unconsitutional law.
For example, if an unconsitutional law were passed requiring every driver and pedestrian to stop at every McDonald's they see and buy a hamburger and that it was the LAW, and failure to comply could bring severe consequences, then if Congress were oblivious to the fact that such law was unconsitutional, they would then amend from time to time to make changes and revisions such as 'each such person must buy a hamburger and a small fries unless they buy a Big mac in which case the small fries requirement is not required.' Another amendment may tack on the requirement to but a soft drink. If later Congresses are pressured by interest groups into recognizing that these requirements are unhealthy, then amendments may be made to substitute the soft drink with orange juice and delete the fries requirement.
And not one elected member questions the legality of the original hamburger law. They amend and amend without knowing the law they amend is an ass.
And to take an example from your list:
Pub. L. 108–311, title I, § 101(c), (d), title IV, §§ 402(a)(1)–(3), 408(a)(1), (2), Oct. 4, 2004, 118 Stat. 1167, 1168, 1184, 1190.
What is this law? Here it is:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:1:./temp/~bdkdio:@@@S|/bss/d108query.html|
And what does it say?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.1308:
In all these Public Laws there are only amendments. The original law is never sourced, never.
In fact, there is a $50,000 prize for the person that can find the source law for having to file an income tax return. No one has been able to find it even after researching 'The United States Statutes at Large'
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html
Feel free to spin your wheels trying.
And there you have it scumbag. You're a liar that is connected to the business.
You're a waste of my time and everyone else's.
But I will give you one more try to convince anyone of your BS.
Answer this simple question:
Why is it that Form 1040 does not contain an OMB Control Number in accordance with USC statutes? Because every form the government uses must be backed by a public law and have an OMB Control number. But the IRS just begged for dismissal for a case with prejudice last month for a case they brought because they don't want this fact getting out.
And lastly scumbag, why is your bogus list of public law amendments above more up-to-date than the link I made to Cornell University? You have Public law 108-357 that Cornell doesn't have. I will tell you why, because you are in the business, you are connected and you have every interest in attempting to smear those that are outing the truth.
Anyone that goes back and reads your posts can see you have all the talking points of someone connected to the business.
Facts are "talking points" to you? Figures.
Here's a section of the Tax Code:
Whereupon you quote a REGULATION, not code:
26 CFR Chapter 1
I thought you wouldn't allow anyone to quote regs. LOL. Everything you say after that point about the "code" is meaningless.
The fact remains, however, that the IRS does desire that everyone would follow the law and self-assess on a timely basis. If you don't, the IRS will do it for you. Why? Because payment of income taxes is not voluntary, contrary to your silly delusions.
It's no different than a local gangster pointing a gun at you saying get in the car.
Of course it's different. As different as night and day. Your local gangster isn't enforcing the provisions of duly enacted federal law, he's acting illegally. You're not really that stupid, are you?
It was never mentioned that Cohen was a member of Congress.
Sure it was. You said that he was a, and these are your exact words, "writer of the personal income tax code." You can't be any such thing unless you are a member of Congress, the only place where the tax code is written.
and he did write tax code
Obviously not, as he was never a member of Congress.
He is a former commissioner and general counsel to the IRS
That's not what you said. Your exact words were "now general counsel to the IRS." But, that generally comports with your usual level of accuracy and factuality, which is approximately zero.
Ron Paul has integrity
LOL. For a member of the House, where all tax bills originate, to let stand any comment which could be interpreted by gullible fools like you to mean that there is no law requiring the payment of taxes, something which he knows perfectly well is false, is the act of a totally dishonest individual, devoid of any honor or integrity at all.
all those source public laws are amendments to the original unconsitutional law.
Today's IRC has its roots in the '54 IRC. You now claim that the '54 IRC is unconstitutional?
Prove it. You can't, of course, but it'll be fun to watch.
Sometimes I wish they would pass a clean copy of the current IRC into positive law so that delusional fools like you would just have to shut up once and for all.
The original law is never sourced, never.
The '54 IRC passed both houses of Congress as HR-8300 and Eisenhower signed it on August 16, 1954, creating Public Law 83-591. There you go. Have at it. Thousands of lawyers have had over 50 years to bring that one magic case that got PL 83-591 ruled unconstitutional. Hasn't happened.
You have Public law 108-357 that Cornell doesn't have. I will tell you why, because you are in the business, you are connected and you have every interest in attempting to smear those that are outing the truth
You're even dimmer than I thought. That entire list is from Cornell, right here.
Proving you to be a paranoid delusional yet one more time.
And, for the umpteenth time, I'm not in the tax "business." I never have been. I'm not a lawyer or CPA. I've never been paid to prepare a tax return in my life. I don't benefit from taxes any more than the average citizen benefits from things like national defense. I've never worked for the IRS or the Treasury Department or any state or local tax agency. In fact, I hate the income tax and would prefer a national comsumption tax.
However, exposing lies, garbage, tripe and rubbish posted by idiot tax protesters and gullible people who drink their kool-aid is a lot of fun.
Why is it that Form 1040 does not contain an OMB Control Number in accordance with USC statutes?
Can't read, huh?
The OMB control number on Form 1040 for 2006 is 1545-0074.
Same number that's been there for decades. Same number that has been repeatedly found by numerous federal courts to be in full compliance with the PRA.
Not that it matters, anyway. Even if there had never been an OMB number issued, the lack of it wouldn't prevent the collection of information or taxes because they are required by statute.
That proposition has been upheld on appeals to the 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal. Since there is no conflict between the Circuits, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will ever hear the ridiculous PRA argument. If they did, it would only be to laugh at it.
Sorry to burst yet another of your delusional bubbles.
But the IRS just begged for dismissal for a case with prejudice last month for a case they brought because they don't want this fact getting out.
LOL. More tax protester mythology. The Lawrence case was dismissed because the IRS screwed up the amounts the clown owed in the indictment and the judge wouldn't allow the government to amend the indictment. The government wasn't about to go to trial and have to admit that they made such a stupid mistake. Lawrence got lucky. Close enough for government work.
Lawrence wanted the government to pay his legal fees. The judge told Lawrence to take a hike, saying in his ruling:
“In light of the cases that had addressed the PRA of 1980, as of the time that Lawrence was prosecuted, the Government had good reason to believe that the PRA defense (even based on the amended PRA of 1995) would not provide someone who failed to pay income taxes with a valid defense”
The judge also said the possibility that a court might rule that the '95 PRA is a valid defense for failing to pay taxes is “unlikely.”
Finally, the judge concluded that:
“Lawrence’s argument that the Government should have known that this [PRA defense] was the law at the time that Lawrence was prosecuted is ridiculous.”
US v. Lawrence, 2006 TNT 153-15, No. 06-10019 (U.S.D.C. C.D. Ill. 7/31/2006.)
The PRA issue had nothing to do with the dismissal, IRS incompetence was responsible. The judge made it clear that Lawrence's PRA "defense" was ridiculous.
POP! goes another tax protester bubble.
Why do you persist in embarrassing yourself? Haven't you been kicked around enough?
Yeah.... like welfare moms.
... and the UN!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
The poster 'scumbag' is trying to discourage you from viewing the film by attacking anyone and everyone that views it as 'kooks'.
Anyone that watches the film will see in minutes that the people in the film are not kooks.
And the poster scumbag has lied on numerous occasions that he is not connected to the IRS business yet he is aware of recent developments that only a connected person would be aware of.
And here is the response to scumbag's continued flailing.
Facts are "talking points" to you? Figures.
You lied that you were not connected to the business and call your disinformation 'facts'. Anyone can see that you are involved in smearing those that expose the scam you are defending.
Whereupon you quote a REGULATION, not code: 26 CFR Chapter 1 I thought you wouldn't allow anyone to quote regs. LOL.
People such as you quote CFR and call it 'law'. But the fact remains that IRS is calling compliance with 1040 'voluntary' in this thread's post #49.
It was never mentioned that Cohen was a member of Congress....... Sure it was. You said that he was a, and these are your exact words, "writer of the personal income tax code." You can't be any such thing unless you are a member of Congress, the only place where the tax code is written.
BS. No mention was made by me that Cohen was a Congressman. When Congress amends IRC, it is frequently through solicitations from IRS. IRS initiated code changes for example recent code changes affecting tax expatriates who are required to pay US taxes for 10 years on income earned abroad even after they have changed citizenship. That was IRS that pushed that amendment. Cohen writes drafts of proposed amendments and sends them on. Another example of your attempt to obfucate the matters at hand.
Today's IRC has its roots in the '54 IRC. You now claim that the '54 IRC is unconstitutional?
You are caught here scumbag. You listed all the amendments and called it proof of the constitutionality of the original unconstitutional law. In fact what you listed were merely irrelevant amendments.
Why did you list irrelevant amendments and say it was proof?
The 1954 the IRS was overhauled and the IRS was reorganized by Congress. The 1954 code is a rehash of the IRC of 1939 and the 1939 IRC was under Roosevelt's people a reorganization and obfuscation of the 1926 Code of Federal Statutes which itself began in 1919. The original law behind the unconstitutional law has never been found.
Sometimes I wish they would pass a clean copy of the current IRC into positive law so that delusional fools like you would just have to shut up once and for all.
Oh I know you wish it were so but they haven't and they won't. The IRS and connected people such as you have been asked numerous numerous times over many years to cite the original law and they have failed. In jury cases, defendants have been acquitted because of this IRS failure.
And as far as your refrain of calling others 'delusional fools' that pin you down on this, it is apparent who is delusional here else you would have the original law at your fingertips.
The '54 IRC passed both houses of Congress as HR-8300 and Eisenhower signed it on August 16, 1954, creating Public Law 83-591. There you go. Have at it. Thousands of lawyers have had over 50 years to bring that one magic case that got PL 83-591 ruled unconstitutional. Hasn't happened.
In your previous BS you just stated you wish their copy was clean. Now you are quoting the 1954 IRC again and claiming it has the original source law. The 1954 IRC was just a rehash of older code as I mentioned above. Why don't you just go get the original source law from the 1954 IRC? And if is the original source law, why is it in 1954?
Once again scumbag, you are caught defending something that does not exist. If it does then cite the ORIGINAL PUBLIC LAW not the IRC.
However, exposing lies, garbage, tripe and rubbish posted by idiot tax protesters and gullible people who drink their kool-aid is a lot of fun.
You're the koolaid drinker scumbag. You haven't produced the ORIGINAL PUBLIC LAW. And that is what the Russo film is about.
And for you to call as kooks the upstanding people that are in that film shows you think of yourself highly. You are the kook scumbag. You're a kook for listing a bunch of irrelevant amendments and calling it proof. Produce the ORIGINAL PUBLIC LAW not the amendments.
The OMB control number on Form 1040 for 2006 is 1545-0074. Same number that's been there for decades. Same number that has been repeatedly found by numerous federal courts to be in full compliance with the PRA.
No I read it scumbag. I left out the word 'valid'. That is surely a minor slight on my part when compared to your massive efforts to pass disinformation. It is not a valid OMB number under 44 U.S.C. 3500–3520.
The fact that you cite PRA is further evidence you are connected to the business. Most of the public is unaware of the intricacy here.
The rest of your crap is easy to refute. Your repeated attempts at obfuscation are clear.
It's all here.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm
Your lame assertion that the government backtracked on a 'computation error' is laughable.
The fact is they were run off with their tail between their legs and that's not the last of it. The lawyers behind this movement are going to take you clowns out.
Glad to hear you are for the NRST. But it's just more of your lies. When we get the NRST passed we are going to DOWNSIZE people such as you and then let the public come after you for the past decades of injustices.
Like I said to you from the beginning scumbag, the train is coming right at you and your accomplices and you can do nothing about it.
Produce the ORIGINAL PUBLIC LAW scumbag, not the amendments and not the BS but the ORIGINAL PUBLIC LAW!
What they do is that the hippies only count the discretionary budget. I.e., no entitlements.
When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
The system is designed to entrap people. The entire populace of the United States should be refusing to pay until something gets done about this abomination.
What hole?
Point to it.
No the people need to be first made aware and then vote for reform.
The goal is not to eliminate the requirement to pay taxes. People must and will pay taxes.
The goal is as Ronald Reagan said to rid oursleves of ‘unjust’ taxes.
The Fait Tax/NRST is Constitutional, the individual income tax is not.
For others that don't wish to wade into this, see the highly acclaimed, accurate and credible film here
LOL. Acclaimed by the easily fooled and unknowledgeable and nobody else.
Why are you shilling for tax protester propaganda which included comments from Joe Banister?
You know, the guy who was disbarred from practicing before the IRS. Which then caused California to yank his CPA ticket. He's real credible:
On December 24, 2003, a decision in United States Department of Treasury Complaint No. 2003-2, Director, Office of Professional Responsibility v. Joseph R. Banister, ordered Mr. Banister disbarred from practice before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Mr. Banister appealed the decision. In a June 25, 2004, decision, the Department of Treasury denied Mr. Banister's appeal and adopted as its final agency action the underlying decision disbarring Mr. Banister from practice before the IRS.
Revocation of CPA Certificate, via proposed decision. Mr. Banister is required to reimburse the Board $6,628 for its investigation and prosecution costs. Effective March 7, 2007.
List of Enforcement Actions for California Board of Accountancy’s Licensees
And why is Irwin Schiff in this movie? Is it because it's a good idea to offer advice and comments from people who have been convicted of federal tax crimes? Irwin was convicted for the THIRD time last year. I guess that makes him about the biggest expert around. Extremely credible! Three-time convict!
And G. Edward Griffin? Why is that nut-case in the movie? Because he wrote the factually inaccurate "The Creature from Jekyll Island," a favorite of wing-nuts everywhere?
How about Sherry Jackson? Is she in the movie because she's good at peddling snake-oil to the gullible at seminars? Or, is it because she was raided by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division? Or, is it because the Georgia Board of Accountancy is investigating her?
That's quite the credible cast in this goofy propaganda flick you're constantly shilling for.
And the poster scumbag has lied on numerous occasions that he is not connected to the IRS business yet he is aware of recent developments that only a connected person would be aware of.
The internet is a wonderful thing. There is all sorts of information on it. You don't even have to be "connected" (other than to the internet) to find all of it.
I guess in your special short-bus universe, only stupid, paranoid people who can't find anything are permitted. That's not how it works here in the real world.
People such as you quote CFR and call it 'law'.
The only person in this entire thread who has quoted any reg is YOU, and mistakenly at that. Regs are not code. Regs have the force and effect of law, but aren't law, they're regs.
But the fact remains that IRS is calling compliance with 1040 'voluntary' in this thread's post #49.
Only on whatever planet you're on. Income taxes are not voluntary. Self-assessment is voluntary. If you fail to do so, you will be assessed by the IRS and incur penalties and interest and perhaps be prosecuted criminally. Taxpayers like this. It means we don't have to pay an army of people to run around and assess every single taxpayer, just those who don't comply voluntarily. It means the IRS army is smaller and less expensive than it would have to be if everything was done involuntarily.
Cohen writes drafts of proposed amendments and sends them on.
Produce one. But, you won't be able to, so I'll just say so what? Only Congress writes the law. Not Cohen or anyone else.
called it proof of the constitutionality of the original unconstitutional law.
You're delusional. Cite the case which has found any part of 26 USC to be unconstitutional.
The original law behind the unconstitutional law has never been found.
Only by you and all of the other yahoos who think that the income tax is unconstitutional. Cite the case which has found any part of 26 USC to be unconstitutional.
In jury cases, defendants have been acquitted because of this IRS failure.
Most recently Vernice Kuglin, who used the Cheek "I'm too stupid to understand the law" defense. It also got Lloyd Long off about 14 years ago. And thus ends the short list of Cheek "winners."
But, guess what? Kuglin still has to pay every single penny of the taxes she tried to evade. Plus penalties. Plus interest. Plus her lawyer bills. The only thing she avoided was prison. That's quite a victory, having your wages garnished.
And if is the original source law, why is it in 1954?
Ah, because that's when the law that was heavily modified in '86 and is regularly amended was passed. What's so hard to understand about that?
Now, cite the case which has found any part of 26 USC to be unconstitutional.
Once again scumbag, you are caught defending something that does not exist.
Tell it to Simkanin, Schiff, Meredith, Johnson and many others who are in prison for many years for violating laws which "don't exist." Tell it to their lawyers, it'll make it real easy for them to spring their clients.
How come all of these lawyers are so ignorant that they don't have this magic knowledge that you have?
It is not a valid OMB number under 44 U.S.C. 3500–3520.
Numerous courts say otherwise:
The IRS has obtained OMB approval of the process of collecting information through Federal income tax returns and has been assigned number 1545-0074 for that process. Further, OMB control number 1545-0074 is displayed on the 1985 and 1986 Forms 1040 issued by the IRS. Therefore, petitioner’s argument that he was relieved of his obligation to report his income for taxable years 1985 and 1986 is inapposite. Schramm v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1991-523, aff’d 988 F2d 121 9th Cir '93
Petitioners have confused the imposition of the Federal income tax, set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code and in section 1.1-1 of its accompanying regulations, with the duty to file a return, set forth in sections 6001, 6011, 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code, together with their accompanying regulations. These latter regulations require the ‘collection of information’ on a Federal income tax return. They have been assigned an OMB number--1545-0074--as set forth at 26 C.F.R. sec. 602.101, Statement of Procedural Rules, and which in all respects appears valid. Petitioners have not shown any basis for holding that OMB number 1545-0074 (which is displayed on the 1981 Form 1040 as well as being assigned to the above regulations) is in any way invalid. Beam v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1990-304, aff’d 956 F2d 1166 9th Cir '92
Petitioners’ arguments concerning the illegality of Form 1040 under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. secs. 3501-3520 (1988), are entirely without basis in fact. (...) The Internal Revenue Service has obtained OMB approval of the process of collecting information through Federal income tax returns. Pekrul v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1992-455, aff’d 993 F2d 884 9th Cir '93
As I said before, it wouldn't matter if there was NO OMB number at all on the 1040:
But where Congress sets forth an explicit statutory requirement that they citizen provide information, and provides statutory criminal penalties for failure to comply with the request, that is another matter. This is a legislative command, not an administrative request. The PRA was not meant to provide criminals with an all-purpose escape hatch. US v. Hicks, 947 F2d 1356 9th Cir '91
Congress did not enact the PRA’s public protection provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed by Congress. ... So the PRA provides Neff no refuge from his statutorily-imposed duty to file income tax returns. US v. Neff, 954 F2d 698, 699-700 11th Cir '92
[T]he requirement to file a tax return is mandated by statute, not regulation. Defendant was not convicted of violating a regulation but of violating a statute which required him to file an income tax return. US v. Wunder, 919 F2d 34, 38 6th Cir '90
Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the statutory requirement that a taxpayer must file a return. US v. Kerwin, 945 F2d 92 5th Cir '92
Salberg was convicted of violating a statute. It was a federal statute--26 U.S.C. Sec. 7203--not a regulation or an instruction book that required Salberg to file an income tax return. Statutes are not subject to the PRA. Salberg v. US, 969 F2d 379, 384 7th Cir '92
We would be inclined to follow the general analysis of Wunder and Hicks and hold that the operation of the PRA in these circumstances did not repeal the criminal sanctions for failing to file an income tax return because the obligation to file is a statutory one. US v. Dawes, 951 F2d 1189, 1192 10th Cir '91
But, again, you have some magic knowledge. Sorry, I think I'll have to go with the courts on this one, too. And, how about all of those references to the statutory duty to file a tax return? That's gotta sting a little bit, huh? LOL.
The fact is they were run off with their tail between their legs and that's not the last of it. The lawyers behind this movement are going to take you clowns out.
The fact is that you don't have the foggiest notion about what you are babbling about and the lawyers behind this movement can look forward to sanctions.
Speaking of sanctions, how about this loser who recently tried your goofy OMB argument?
His name is Richard J. Barzeski. He claimed the OMB number was expired. That got him a $5,000 sanction from the Tax Court and another $1,000 tacked on by the 3rd Circuit for filing a frivolous appeal. Richard J. Barzeski v. Commissioner, 2006 TNT 61-11, No. 05-4012 3rd Cir '06.
You're in good company. All losers.
givemeliberty dot org
LOL. Bob Schulz? Another loser who is about to be enjoined and probably prosecuted?
TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2007
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES ROBERT L. SCHULZ AND “WE THE PEOPLE” TO STOP ALLEGED TAX SCAM
Queensbury, N.Y., Man’s Scheme Allegedly Cost U.S. Treasury $21 Million
WASHINGTON – The United States announced that it has sued to block Robert L. Schulz, of Queensbury, N.Y., from selling an alleged tax fraud scheme said to have cost the U.S. Treasury more than $21 million, the Justice Department announced today. Also named in the suit are two corporations, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc., and We the People Congress Inc.
The government’s complaint, filed in Syracuse with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleges that Schulz has used the two We the People entities to market a nationwide tax fraud scheme, called the Tax Termination Package, to employers and employees. According to the complaint, the Tax Termination Package includes We the People forms, which the defendants falsely tell customers can be used to replace forms the IRS requires employers and employees must use in connection with federal tax withholding from wages. < snip >
Yeah, I'm sure I'll believe his interpretation. You bet.
Sent him any money for his stupid lawsuits? Are you one of his suckers? Wouldn't surprise me.
Produce the ORIGINAL PUBLIC LAW scumbag, not the amendments and not the BS but the ORIGINAL PUBLIC LAW!
I don't have to produce anything, you're the one who claims the law is unconstitutional. Cite the case which has found any part of 26 USC to be unconstitutional.
And, please feel free to come back for another beating anytime, although I would have thought that you'd be tired of it by now.
Like that will ever work.
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.