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.
I presume you've seen the Russo film. Then you know the question that I asked related to the existence of a prima source law, the original law that required the filing of an individual tax return. There has to be a Public Law, not a code section but a Public Law.
In Post #43 you responded with all this:
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.
Why did you do this?
I'll fill in for you and you correct me if I am wrong about your purpose for doing so. I said in Post #42 the following:
"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."
So in your haste to contradict me you took all the above from an online database and pasted it into your Post #43 because you wanted to show there are 'laws' that were passed and signed into law.
Did you know that each and every one of the laws you cited was just an amendment to the code? There is no original source law in them, they are all just amendments.
Here's the problem: you saw the Russo film so you knew what I was asking and you knew I wasn't asking for a bunch of amendment law, right? Of course right. But you decided to copy and paste all the amendment law references into your post, to do what? To confuse the issue. That's what is called being 'disingenuous' at best.
Now I'll let you respond to that and will go with the next item.