IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability(Abolish with The Fair Tax)

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | July 26, 2007 | Bob Unruh

[ClearCase_guy]

Good point.

[webstersII]

“You’ll be happy to know HJR 16 before the House will repeal the 16th Amendment.”

Whats the point? Don’t amendments have to be ratified by the states, not voted on by Congress?

[Puddleglum]

Being “30 something” - the most distressing “tax” to me is the ungodly amount of “social security tax” that’s taken out of my paycheck especially when I know I’ll never see it in my old age.

To his credit, Bush tried to do something about that, but in this age of beginning the next reelection campaign before the last one is over, few congressmen supported him.

I worry about the effect of low population growth on all of this. When couples barely have two kids each, and some none, who is going to pay in for ma and pa's ponzi scheme payout? Either the system will cease to exist or the program will be burdensome beyond belief. It is already insanely burdensome.

Yet another reason to not vote for "timid" candidates whose motto or pattern of behavior is to "go with the flow - you can't really change anything."

[Turret Gunner A20]

BRAVO!!!!!

[AntiScumbag]

to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax

Bob Unruh has not the slightest clue about which he writes. Cryer was aquitted of WILLFUL failure to file. Cryer avoided prison because he and his lawyer convinced a jury that he was too stupid to understand the law.

Cryer will still have to pay all tax, penalty and interest, not to mention his lawyer.

[RangerM]

My intent was to use the Government/IRS own laws against them, not to prove/disprove their right to tax.

After all, if you don’t “make a profit” at the minimum wage, then why isn’t the “standard deduction” equal to:

5.15 x 40 hrs/wk x 52 wks/year = $10,712

While I’m thankful for Cryer’s efforts, I’d be curious to know which is greater: his tax bill or the amount of $$ in legal fees it took to adjudicate the case.

The Fair Tax seems to be a potential answer, but as with any tax system, there will be ways for the politicians to exploit it.

[ClearCase_guy]

Cryer avoided prison because he and his lawyer convinced a jury that he was too stupid to understand the law.

Was the jury aware that Cryer is a lawyer?

[webstersII]

“But they could not show the jury that law.”

Isn’t it true that they didn’t convict those guys of not paying taxes, the conviction was for not filing tax returns?

[webstersII]

“But they could not show the jury that law.”

Isn’t it true that they didn’t convict those guys of not paying taxes, the conviction was for not filing tax returns?

[Little Ray]

Actually, IIRC, there was an income tax BEFORE the 16th Amendment was passed, during the War of Northern Agression (passed by Yankees, of course!). The Congress doesn’t necessarily need a 16th Amendment to tax us directly.

[Capt_Hank]

Welcome to the club. My run ins, started in 1967. The latest, just last year. Well, they finally reduced me to the “lowest common denominator”.

I guess I didn’t help my case, by stating.... “If I had a hand grenade, I would pull the pin and lob it into your lap.” “That would be the just rewards, to you sorry A$$ed, SOB’s.”

[RSmithOpt]

"What does that tell you?"

It tells me that as with the IRS case, many agencies in government, at all levels in numerous instances, have no direct law stating their authority to create the chaos, create and impose the fees (taxes), apply the red tape, impose their relentless bureaucratization of society, subjugate the citizens to their policies, etc., that all we Americans have to struggle against.

IOW, 'TOTAL F'N BS'

Pardon my language, but, it's the truth and the sheeple just huddle around with each other under their lone pine tree (the government) believing that the pine tree will shield them when the next thunderstorm rolls in.

[Turret Gunner A20]

re: #30

Constitutionally they do -- but then neither Honest (????) Abe notr the Congress paid any attention to that Document. Any m,ore than the Congress does today.

[Man50D]

This organization will not be abolished, because it is the government’s way of implementing a social welfare system for people who would never get a job in the private sector

It will be abolished if enough people pressure politicians to pass The Fair Tax Act. That is happening as the grassroots movement is growing.

[CMAC51]

The Fair Tax seems to be a potential answer, but as with any tax system, there will be ways for the politicians to exploit it.

What is actually needed is a law that restricts Federal Revenue from taxes and fees to a specific percentage of GDP, 18 or 19% would work. Require that any revenue taken in in excess of that be refunded to the taxpayers. That way the only way they can get more is by doing things that grow the economy. Wouldn't that be a change?

[theBuckwheat]

If the Tax Code is technically deficient in ways that allow a person to avoid paying tax, it is very bad for our civil society. I say this not as a fan of the 16th Amendment, but as a matter of Constitutional government. If we, as a country full of free people, intend on taxing income (however we later allow government to define ‘income’), then Due Process demands the law must clearly state such in ways that make the obligation clear.

But clearly the Tax Code does not make this clear. I have followed the twisted trail through the code myself to see that what is ‘income’ is a cloudy question. This only invites tyranny, and arbitrary court rulings. Worse, people who read the Code and see no obligation may be foolish enough to not understand that the Men With Guns think otherwise, and want to make examples of such fools.

So, People Who Know Whats Good For Them pay anyway, to avoid having to be hauled into a Court that will almost certainly rule against them because the Court has a great conflict of interest, being employed to uphold the Code and paid by monies secured through the Code.

What is wrong with this picture? The US Congress could fix this language in a New York Second, but they have never seen fit to do so? So, this is deliberate on their part.

One reason the income tax must be repealed is because it destroys financial privacy. We need to slay this monster as soon as possible.

[ctyankee00]

Yes, and the original ratification of the 16th ammendment is somewhat murky.

[I_be_tc]

later

[BenLurkin]

If we switched over to a national sales tax (the so-called “Fair Tax”) how many decades would it be before we would be free of the ensuing chaos?