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.
The courts have repeatedly and emphatically said that you're dead wrong:
Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable. US v. McDonald, 919 F2d 146 10th Cir '90
Congress’s failure to enact a title [of the United States Code] into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryan’s rights by enforcing it. Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 9th Cir '85
The petitioner’s argument that the Internal Revenue Code was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time. Urban v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F2d 888 9th Cir '92
On appeal he [Scott] makes the same arguments advanced and rejected countless times in tax protestor litigation, such as that the Tax Code is not binding “positive law,” and wages are exempt from taxation because they are not income. US v. Scott, '99 US App LEXIS 16877; 99-2 US Tax Cas (CCH) P50,745; 84 AFTR2d (RIA) 5342, 7th Cir '99
The appellant’s argument regarding the validity of Title 26 is frivolous. The validity of Title 26 is not affected merely because it has not been codified as ‘positive law’.” Hackett v. Commissioner, 791 F2d 933 6th Cir '86
The claim that Title 26 was not enacted into ‘positive law,’ has been rejected as ‘frivolous,’ ‘baseless,’ ‘specious,’ and ‘preposterous.’ US v. Maczka, 957 FSupp 988, 991 WDMich '96
See, after there's a long line of decisions saying the same thing, the argument becomes frivolous. Just like your stupid OMB number argument is frivolous, so is the idea that the IRC is not validly enacted. The IRS has gotten tired of all of the stupid tax protester questions and claims and has issued a notice of what they consider to be frivolous.
Guess what?
ALL of your various "arguments" made the frivolous list. Using any one of them on a tax return will get you a $5,000 penalty:
Positions that are the same as or similar to the positions listed in this Notice are identified as frivolous for purposes of the penalty for a “frivolous tax return” under section 6702(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and the penalty for a “specified frivolous submission” under section 6702(b).
< snip >
Frivolous Positions. Positions that are the same as or similar to the following are frivolous.
(1) Compliance with the internal revenue laws is voluntary or optional and not required by law, including arguments that:
a. Filing a Federal tax or information return or paying tax is purely voluntary under the law, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B.
< snip >
c. There is no legal requirement to file a Federal income tax return because the instructions to Forms 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ or the Treasury regulations associated with the filing of the forms do not display an OMB control number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq., or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2006-21, 2006-15 I.R.B. 745.
< snip >
(2) The Internal Revenue Code is not law (or “positive law”) or its provisions are ineffective or inoperative, including the sections imposing an income tax or requiring the filing of tax returns, because the provisions have not been implemented by regulations even though the provisions in question either (a) do not expressly require the Secretary to issue implementing regulations to become effective or (b) expressly require implementing regulations which have been issued.
< snip >
You're three for three! You win the prize for spouting the most tax protester nonsense so far this year.