And again...show me in the code where it says I'm liable. If we are to follow the law, and not case law, which is overturned quite often, show me where in the code it says we are liable. There must be some relevant regulation that we are to see for sure that we are laible. Quoting court decisions is not the law. WE all know the courts are corrupt.
You have not been able to answer except with case law which is irrevelant to this discussion.
Lawyers and judges can base their findings on previous oppinions. BUt they can be overturned.
I've never seen one instance where a zero income return has been ruled by any court to be illegal or frivolous.
And who is exempt if they put that on a w4?
And again...show me in the code where it says I'm liable.
Once again since you seem to have a reading disability, and demand a repeat for lack of comprehension the first times around:
If it is established in the courts that you have "gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return 26 U.S.C. s 6012" you are a "person liable" 26 U.S.C. ss 6001, 26 U.S.C. ss 6011.
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.
- "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."
- "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.
- Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.
- 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, ..."
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."
If you don't like the code, you are welcome to cry on a judge's shoulder for whatever good that may do you:
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.
Or work to repeal it. John Linder (R Georgia) offers a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement:
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
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
Then what is the definition of income? What is income?
Can't read to well can you, here it is again:
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;
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:
GAIN. The word is used as synonymous with profits.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
PROFITS. In general, by this term is understood the benefit which a man derives from a thing. It is more particularly applied to such benefit as arises from his labor and skill
And hasn't changed in the intervening 147 years:
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:
- "'[I]ncome' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:
- "The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."
- "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "
Eisner v. Macomber(1920), 252 U.S. 189,207
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189#207
- "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), ... , 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054)."
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary © 2000
Main Entry: in·come
Pronunciation: 'in-"k&m also 'in-k&m or 'i[ng]-k&m
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a coming in : , <fluctuations in the nutrient income of a body of water>
2 : a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time <has an income of $20,000 a year>
You have not been able to answer except with case law which is irrevelant to this discussion.
26 U.S.C. s 1, 26 U.S.C. s 63, 26 U.S.C. s 61, 26 U.S.C. ss 6001, 26 U.S.C. ss 6011, 26 U.S.C. s 6012.
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] sic 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; "
- 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."
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.
Lawyers and judges can base their findings on previous oppinions. BUt they can be overturned.
Not without generating "case law which is irrevelant to this discussion", so they can't be overturned according to you. Which is it, is case law relevant, or not?
I've never seen one instance where a zero income return has been ruled by any court to be illegal or frivolous.
Haven't look very hard have you.
According to Erwin Schiff who coached these folks along, and helped them file his specialty, (i.e. the zero income tax return):
"Robert and Elena Brown of Las Vegas filed their 1996 "zero" income tax return, they requested a refund of the $5,035 in "wage taxes" they had paid that year.
|
ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AND SERVED D.C. No CV No. CV-98-00825-PMP (RJJ) ROBERT A. BROWN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2066.htm
|
Lawyers and judges can base their findings on previous oppinions. BUt they can be overturned.
OOps, rulings didn't get overturned. Too bad.
And who is exempt if they put that on a w4?
Who's they? Garbage in Garbage out. Making an invalid statement on any legal form just increases the legal risk. Go for it, you can always cry on the judge's shoulder when they use it against you.
The W-4 is merely a mechanism to set up witholding, which is not the income tax, but one method of several for arranging payment of income tax.
BARAL v. UNITED STATES, 172 F. 3d 918; affirmed SCOTUS 98-1667 (Feb 22, 2000)
- "Contrary to Baral's claim, the withholding tax and estimated tax are not taxes in their own right (separate from the income tax), that are converted into income tax only on the income tax return. Rather, they are methods for collecting income taxes."
Make a fraudulent statement or don't pay the proper tax, guess what's waiting in the wings for DOJ to play with:
Section 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.Section 7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax
Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.Section 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Just think, they get to do that with an "imposed" tax.
Hehe, don't worry, they just impose it for you, you don't even have to worry about looking up the term "liable". You only need to know what "impose" and "required" means.
Main Entry: im·pose
Pronunciation: im-'pOz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): im·posed; im·pos·ing
Etymology: Middle French imposer, from Latin imponere, literally, to put upon (perfect indicative imposui), from in- + ponere to put -- more at POSITION
Date: 1581
transitive senses
1 a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties> b : to establish or bring about as if by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies -- C. H. Plimpton>
Danged French again,! Always mess'n with us, ought to at least flush em out of the english language donch'ya think?
Main Entry: re·quire
Pronunciation: ri-'kwIr
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re·quired; re·quir·ing
Etymology: Middle English requeren, from Middle French requerre, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin requaerere to seek for, need, require, alteration of Latin requirere, from re- + quaerere to seek, ask
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 a : to claim or ask for by right and authority b archaic : REQUEST
2 a : to call for as suitable or appropriate <the occasion requires formal dress> b : to demand as necessary or essential : have a compelling need for <all living beings require food>
3 : to impose a compulsion or command on : COMPEL
4 chiefly British : to feel or be obliged -- used with a following infinitive <one does not require to be a specialist -- Elizabeth Bowen>
Wouldn't you just know it, them French, cheeze eat'n, surrender monkey's do'n it to us ag'n.
Isn't it nice Congress Critters are looking out for you?
You only have to look up two terms in the dictionary to find out whether you "owe" a tax or not, instead of three. That's called simplifying the tax law :O|
"The fact that the law doesn't authorize a tax on wages also doesn't "fly" in our courts - as of today."
Gee you think maybe he is on to something?
As I have stated many times before, complain to Congress if you don't like the Court's construction of the statutes. Otherwise, them Courts will just keep on slapping folks with penalties, fines, and jail time figuring that's what Congress wants them to do.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."PATTERSON v. McLEAN CREDIT UNION, 485 U.S. 617 (1988)
- Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 736 (1977) ("[W]e must bear in mind that considerations of stare decisis weigh heavily in the area of statutory construction, where Congress is free to change this Court's interpretation of its legislation" (WHITE, J., writing for the Court))
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
- "If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."
So fix the courts by fixing the tax law:
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
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