Replies

Stop it, yer killin' me.

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?

Stop it, yer killin' me.

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.

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.

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:

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.