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?