Replies

So if a armed robber sticks a gun in my face and demands that I hand over my wallet, it is really voluntary on my part as to rather or not I actually hand over the wallet.

Slight difference, the armed robber is not acting within Constitutional or legal authority, the United States Congress is:

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

James Madison, Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

Constitution for the United States of America:

Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Voluntary isn't supposed to mean that if you don't do something, you are going to face serious legal consequences, or worse, as a result.

And just where in the tax law does it say anything about payment of taxes being Voluntary.

The Courts have made it very clear the payment of taxes is quite obligatory. The only choice you have is whether you do so on time under your own steam, or the courts order it in a distraint action. Either way the requirement for payment is obligatory with cash on the barrelhead.

In short the action of distraint, is requirement by court action to force payment. Our tax system relies on people meeting their financial obligations without compelling them to pay through perpetual civil suits the same as such is required to pay a debt for goods or service in a store. The payment is obligatatory in either case.

Suit and distraint in either case are only necessary when people evade their financial obligations to report and pay.

Flora vs U.S.(1960), 362. U.S. 145, and on pg. 176

"The question presented is whether a Federal District Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1346 (a) (1) of a suit by a taxpayer for the refund of income tax payments which did not discharge the entire amount of his assessment."

"the Government can collect the tax from a District Court suitor by exercising its power of distraint - if he does not split his cause of action - but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. A full-payment requirement will promote the smooth functioning of this system; a part-payment rule would work at cross-purposes with it.

In sum, if we were to accept petitioner's argument, we would sacrifice the harmony of our carefully structured twentieth century system of tax litigation, and all that [362 U.S. 145, 177] would be achieved would be a supposed harmony of 1346 (a) (1) with what might have been the nineteenth century law had the issue ever been raised. Reargument has but fortified our view that 1346 (a) (1), correctly construed, requires full payment of the assessment before an income tax refund suit can be maintained in a Federal District Court."

BULL v. UNITED STATES(1935) 295 U.S. 247 :

" A serious and difficult issue is raised by the claim that the same receipt has been made the basis of both income and estate tax, although the item cannot in the circumstances be both income and corpus; and that the alternative prayer of the petition required the court to render a judgment which would redress the illegality and injustice resulting from the erroneous inclusion of the sum in the gross estate for estate tax. The respondent presents two arguments in opposition, one addressed to the merits and the other to the bar of the statute of limitations."
", the usual procedure for the recovery of debts is reversed in the field of taxation. Payment precedes defense, and the burden of proof, normally on the claimant, is shifted to the taxpayer. The assessment supersedes the pleading, proof, and judgment necessary in an action at law, and has the force of such a judgment. The ordinary defendant stands in judgment only after a hearing. The taxpayer often is afforded his hearing after judgment and after payment, and his only redress for unjust administrative action is the right to claim restitution. But these reversals of the normal process of collecting a claim cannot obscure the fact that after all what is being accomplished is the recovery of a just debt owed the sovereign."