Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: *Taxreform

2 posted on 03/04/2002 10:59:35 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Libertarianize the GOP
When the warrior refuses to join the battle, it usually means the warrior is afraid he will get beat. If the government is so right and Schulz so wrong, the government should take the opportunity to show the public what a fool Schulz is. Schulz threw down the challenge, the government 'weaseled' by not accepting the challenge. Use your own judgement.
3 posted on 03/04/2002 11:26:04 PM PST by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Libertarianize the GOP; meenie

When the warrior refuses to join the battle, it usually means the warrior is afraid he will get beat.

Course if there is no battle and only hype, why should he show up.

 

I guess some folks never get the word. Answers have been clear as a bell for the last 200 years, just because Schulz & Co. don't like the answer does not in anyway invalidate them.

Answers from the Founders:

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

James Madison, Federalist #39:

James Madison, Federalist #45:

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

"COMMERCE, trade, contracts
.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

DUTIES.
In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

EXCISES.
This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

INCOME.
The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

WAGES,
contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

COMPENSATION
, contracts. A reward for services rendered.

Constitution for the United States of America:

Consideration received in exchange for labor or product is commerce, subject to an indirect tax.


Answers from the Supreme Court:

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

  • "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "
  • "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."
  • "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"
  • "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
  • Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

  • "The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."
  • "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."
  • "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."
  •  

    Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

    POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107

    KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

    BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

    STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)


    Answers from the Congress:

    House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:


    Answers from the Treasury Department & IRS:

    26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)

    Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

    (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on
    the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the
    United States
    and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),
    on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

    (b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In
    general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
    resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
    Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States
    .

    FRIVOLOUS FILING POSITION BASED ON SECTION 861

    NonFiler Enforcement Program


    Answers from the Department of Justice & Jurys:

    DEP'T OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL TAX MANUAL, TAX PROTESTERS.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??

    CONTACT: 919/856-4530

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    Friday - February 4, 2000

    RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.

    Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.

    During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.

    According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.

    Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.


    Answers from the Legal Community:

    The Tax Protestor FAQ

    Quatloo's Tax Protestor Gallery

    Government has met its burden and answered the relavent questions as regards the income tax, officially and repeatedly.

    It seems me Schulz & Company are more interested in a media event for his own agrandizement (promotion of his pocket book and political agenda) than listening or looking for real answers. It remains to be seen just how much his life is on the line, seeing as how he repeatedly dodged questions to that effect during his interview on FOX the other night.


    I have yet to run across a tax protest site that advocates and supports legislation to actually accomplish the job of getting rid of the income tax in any of its forms. In fact, I more often find them supporting the continuation of the status quo with no change in law as regards the income tax.

    Alan Keyes refers to the income tax as the slave tax and supports a National Retail sales tax to replace it. The Original Intent of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy. That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.

    I agree with Alan Keyes that it is long past time to end the Income Tax once and for all, I push for offering the bills to do so and support their passage in Congress:

    H.R.2525
    SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/14/99)
    A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States

    and the modification then enactment and ratification of:

    H.J.RES.45
    Sponsor: (introduced 4/25/2001)
    Latest Major Action: 5/9/2001 Referred to House subcommitte.
    Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the Untied States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.

    (Modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR2525 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)

    And to keep em reminded that there is indeed a Constitution to pay attention to:

    H.R.175
    Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001)
    Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee
    Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.


    5 posted on 03/05/2002 11:19:57 AM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article


    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson