Posted on 10/19/2002 4:13:41 PM PDT by Action-America
The following is from the Editorial Comment section of the Sovereign Society A-Letter, Friday, October 18, 2002 - Vol. 4 No. 108. This editorial about the IRS Tyranny, by former congressman Robert E. Bauman, JD, is only a small portion of one of the better issues of the A-Letter. I strongly suggest that you follow the above link to the A-Letter and read the various articles that you will find links to on that page.
Comment: IRS Tyranny
Dear A-Letter Reader:
We often have commented critically about the US Internal Revenue Service and it high handed, even unconstitutional tactics. Its special targets have been offshore credit card holders and those who use tax shelters in their estate planning. These IRS Gestapo tactics have included broad demands for millions of credit card purchase records from both charge card companies, and individual business where cards may have been used by card holders.
This week more IRS demands were filed in federal courts to force some 70 American businesses to provide still more records. The companies include Disney resorts, automobile and truck dealerships, hotels, airlines, and retail stores where individuals might have made purchases with an offshore credit card. There is no probable cause involved, just the naked IRS demand to rummage at will though citizens' private records.
Also this week, the IRS proposed new anti-tax shelter rules in what they claim is an effort to curb widespread illegal use of such vehicles to evade taxes. One of the new requirements is that taxpayers must report to the IRS any tax shelter plans 'marketed by accountants under conditions of confidentiality.' In other words, if an accounting firm imposes privacy on its agreement with a taxpayer, that alone makes both suspect of evasion.
A few months ago the IRS was forced to apologize publicly for releasing scores of names of individuals who were using legal tax shelters that IRS agents simply did not like. Of course, by then people were already smeared in news reports as potential criminal tax evaders.
Officially sanctioned public smears, illegal searches and seizures and wholesale fishing expeditions into private financial records have a devastating impact on reputations, careers and individual prosperity, not to mention the enormous cost of defending against such blatant government aggression.
A President who preaches so often about waging war against tyrants might start by ending the IRS tyranny based in Washington, DC, just a few blocks away from where he sits in the White House.
That's the way that it looks from here.
BOB BAUMAN, Editor
Robert E. Bauman is a member of the District of Columbia bar, a former member of the U.S. Congress and the author of many books on offshore banking and asset protection topics. He is the editor of The Sovereign Society Offshore A-Letter and is the Society's legal counsel.
The IRS has started us on a downward spiral, that only they can stop.
Although I am firmly convinced, for my own reasons, that we need to take out Sadam, Bob Bauman does make a good point. Dubya talks a great talk about waging war against tyrants. But, while he is planning a complicated battle against Iraq, we must question his motives, since he seems unwilling to even utter the few words that it would take to reign in the tyrants down the street. I suppose that we should interpret that to mean that Dubya is only interested in ending foreign tyranny.
The link is below. It is posted on FR.
NESARA - The National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act - The BIll
There's another link which I will provide if I can find it. It goes into further details about this new plan to overhaul tax collection, IRS, Federal Reserve Banks, etc, and gives the list of some of the signers of this proposal. Many people think that because the "Big Banks" are really the ones in total control of our monetary system, that this will never happen because it will take away the power of control over the printing, distribution and value of money by the Federal Reserve Banks over to the treasury dept of the U.S. Govt. I'll get back to you when I find the other article.
NESARA - National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act - Status Of The Bill
There is also another link that goes into the "Nitty Gritty" of the Bill. I try to find it and post it as well.
You will have to page down until you get to the article. It begins with: Here's the Nitty Gritty....
And the way you can tour Alcatraz prison! Great comment!
Can anyone explain to me where in section 6020B it directly states why I must file an income tax form 1040 or 1099?
There is no section 6020B in the current version of Title 26.
Section 6020(a) & (b), however, authorise the Secretary of Treasury to help you out when you fail to do so under section 6001 & section 6011.
Of course when the Secretary of Treasury and his minions do it for you things might not be exactly figured in your interest.
26 USC Section 6020. Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary
(a) Preparation of return by Secretary
If any person shall fail to make a return required by this title
or by regulations prescribed thereunder, but shall consent to
disclose all information necessary for the preparation thereof,
then, and in that case, the Secretary may prepare such return,
which, being signed by such person, may be received by the
Secretary as the return of such person.
(b) Execution of return by Secretary
(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return
If any person fails to make any return required by any internal
revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed
therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent
return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own
knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through
testimony or otherwise.
(2) Status of returns
Any return so made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be
prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes.
The courts explain it quite clearly for those who have a problem with a reading compehension of the statutes, and provide a strong incentive to comply with said statutes:
United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
ARGUED: Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr.[one of Schulz & Co. legal beagles], Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellants.The jury heard not only the United States's evidence against the Meltons, but also the brothers' defense that they believed they were not "persons liable" for federal income tax. The jury rejected the excuse, however, and convicted them on nearly all counts.
- [Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."
- [Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.
- [Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.
- [Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.
- Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations." United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990). The rarely recognized proposition that, "where the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant--actually or imputedly--lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Mallas, 762 F.2d at 363 (quoting United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir.1974)), simply does not apply here.
Each Melton brother had gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return in each of the years at issue. Therefore, each was a "person liable."
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that state citizens are exempt from income tax.
KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
A good article published in The New American for those who think they have been handed a silver bullet getting them out of income tax liability to read and consider:
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
Now how'bout putting and end to the IRS and the income tax instead of trying to find the silver bullit around them
It is long past time to end the Income Tax once and for all and get rid of the intrusive anal exam of family finances by government. Support the enactment of the bills before congress that would actually achieve that.
Billy Tauzin offers one solution, a 15% retail sales tax that replaces all income taxes but doesn't touch SS/Mediscare payroll taxes, that comes close to meeting the essentials of what it takes to reverse trend?:
H.R.2717
Sponsor: Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy)(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity for families by repealing the income tax, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
John Linder (R Texas) offers a more comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a revenue neutral replacement:
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
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.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
See Also: Fairtax FAQ (NSBU)
Other bills, moving in the proper direction are:
To get the ball rolling and focus Congress Critter's attention:
H.R.2714
Sponsor: Rep Largent, Steve(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
A bill to prohibit he imposition of any tax by the Internal Revenue Code: (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2005.
To sunset some agencies we don't need and rein in their expenditures:
H.R.2373
Sponsor: Rep Brady, Kevin(introduced 6/28/2001)
Title: To provide for the periodic review of the efficiency and public need for Federal agencies, to establish a Commission for the purpose of reviewing the efficiency and public need of such agencies, and to provide for the abolishment of agencies for which a public need does not exist.
Modification then enact and ratify:
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.
The answer isn't tax protesting. The answer lies in electing representatives who will legislatively overturn 89 years of tyranny. Unfortunately, that means replacing several senior Republicans (hopefully with other more responsible Republicans, but replacing them nonetheless).
It's time for the National Retail Sales Tax.
23%........... HR2525 (NRST) rate
14.91% ..... rate if Social Security and Medicare were privatized
14% .......... rate if Nat'l Endowment for the Arts were eliminated
11.9%........ rate if Dept. of Education were eliminated
10% .......... rate if welfare were eliminated
9.8%.......... rate if foreign aid were eliminated
etc.
Hmmmmmm....... It's doable, with time and effort, once the blinders are removed from the electorate. An NRST removes the blinders as well as get the government nose out of our family finances.
None of those What if's or even "Rate if" are going to happen. They can't even reduce PBS funding..here's the truth of a "revenue neutral" national sales tax "to replace all other federal taxes" :
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was asking about simplicity and how do we understand all of this. Let me read a memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation . This ought to be simple enough for the gentleman to understand.
The memorandum is in response to their request for an estimate of the budget neutral tax rate for H.R. 2525. That is the bill of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER), a bill to replace the current U.S. corporate and individual income, estate and gift and Federal income contributions act, payroll taxes, with a flat tax on retail sales of all goods and services.
Then on the second page it has a little chart here, neutral over 5 years, 59.5 percent. That is what they want to do, neutral over 5 years, national sales tax 59.5 percent. I believe the American people can understand that.
Running a small business in Mass., I ended up seeing it the same exact way. This was confirmed by my father who after running this business for 30 years told me : " you can't do this honestly anymore"... he knew, I found out, same as you. The criminals do quite well.
Best practical answer: If you can't beat 'em join 'em...get a government job, and keep your freeper politics under wraps.
the budget neutral tax rate
Tax law is not rated on budget neutrality, lewislynn. Especially the budgets project by the house demcratic caucus, during the Clinton adminstration wish lists.
The NRST is rated against current tax law, as is only required to provide the same revenue as current tax law. Not some future pie in the sky dreams of Mr. Frost, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
Taken together Individual and Corporate Income Tax rates with Social security taxes the family current pays and which the NRST proposes to replace:
| Effective Total Federal Tax Rate (Percent of gross income) | |||||||||||
| Income Category | 1977 | 1979 | 1981 | 1983 | 1985 | 1987 | 1989 | 1991 | 1993 | 1995 | Projected 1999 |
| All Families | 22.8 | 23.4 | 23.5 | 21.4 | 21.8 | 22.6 | 22.5 | 22.6 | 23.5 | 24.7 | 24.2 |
Data from IRS collections statistics and The Bureau of Economic Analysis as compiled in tabular form by the Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1545&from=4&sequence=0
The NRST proposes 23% of a family's gross retail expenditure to fund the same level revenue stream as required by the Budget Enforcement Act that all tax law is required meet for enactment.
To see a lowering of rate, government expenditure must be decreased, and that can only come from repeal of programs.
But then you know that, so what was the point of your little blurb?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.