Posted on 05/19/2003 12:42:57 PM PDT by Kowdawg
One man's effort to get an answer...
What started as a reasonable question to authority has now become a cause with purpose! Texas state Citizen Gene Chapman wants to know: "Where is my tax liability in the law?" Beginning April 15 he was willing to at least lose some weight in the matter and possibly go further. As of May 19th, day thirty-five, Gene is resigned to go the distance if an bona fide answer is not received! Time has shown, this man is serious! See the DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE Advance Directive.
"Where is MY tax liability in the law?" A simple question to which anyone who is presented a tax - any tax - should get an immediate, specific and legitimate response. 'Show me authority!' No response = unresponsive government. No response causes a reasonable man or woman to presume that there is no answer? No answer = no legitimacy = no law = extortion! (First Corinthians 6:10)
Beginning on the symbolic date of April 15, 2003, Gene began his death-fast with the intention of getting an answer from the Internal Revenue Service to the question he's been asking for more than three years. "What makes Texas Citizen Gene Chapman liable for income tax? Where is this liability so stated in the law - specifically?" Simple questions. And now many inquiring minds want to know: Where are the answers?
Gene is a proud Texan, from Lewisville, with ancestry that goes back to the early days of Texas. Some of his kinfolk actually fought with Sam Houston in the battle of San Jacinto where Texas won its independence from Mexico on April 21, 1836.
A soft-spoken, modest, single, middle-age, working man with no desire to be a ‘cause celebre’, Gene just wants a bone fide, legitimate, documented response to his question. And he is willing to go all the way to death to get it! Being a sincere Christian and an admirer of Mohandas Gandhi (India, 1869-1948), and other devotees to peaceful answers, Gene is willing to submit himself to the now probable and definite perils of a prolonged food fast to achieve his goals. Several health professionals are checking on Gene during the day and he is allowing himself water. As of day 34, he has lost over 50 pounds - one attending nurse believes such a rapid weight loss is not beneficial for his heart. Austin, Texas weather is not being kind to him. April 24 saw a new record high of 95 degrees! And as virtually no rain fell during the month, April 2003 is now in the record books as being the third driest on record since the battle for the Alamo. To those of us who have shelter from the elements this may not seem like much to be concerned about - however, this author suggests that a reader spend just one day on a street corner without food wherever the reader may be and report back on the experience. Because of the kind donations Gene has thusfar received, he is able now to be indoors. The in-expensive motel that he is currently in doesn't offer many ammities - and he doesn't have the need for many. He is weak in his physical and yet his mind is clear! He appreciates the support he's been getting.
Dressed in a dhoti of Indian fabric, which he located with the help of Arun Gandhi, a grandson of Mohandas Gandhi, and seated on a donated lawn chair, as his original stadium seat was taken while he was indisposed, under what is now known as the “Liberty Tree” on the street corner of Parker Lane & Woodward Street, in south Austin, Texas, directly across from the Austin Regional IRS Unit - Gene gently smiles and waves at the various onlookers that go by. They wave, horns sound, some stop and talk. This particular area is well populated with University of Texas students and, before the end of the semester, many would stop and chat while they were waiting for the shuttle to take them to school. “Helps shorten the day” says Gene. An interesting note is the reaction he gets from the IRS employees as they leave work for the day – smiles, hand waves, horns, and thumbs up! "Do they know something that we don’t?" Also, in an apparent show of solidarity local police seem to be patrolling the area with a bit more frequency.
Gene has a modest camper unit which houses personal belongings and provides sanitary facilities. It was a place to sleep during the nights prior to getting a motel room.
Local media coverage so far has been adequate and yet sometimes misleading. In a short piece (two min.) during the 6:00 p.m. segment (Monday, April 21), the local talking head (Kenneth Vargas) for the I.R.S. gave the standard canned response to the TV news reporter (Quita Culpepper) about the IRS being legitimate and the tax being constitutional, etc., and nothing about Gene's question. Kenneth Vargas publically stated that he would be happy to help Gene - as of day 34 he has not visited, contacted or done anything (known) regarding Gene Chapman. Interesting side note that shows how sometimes media can be mis-leading -- the local announcer’s (Ron Oliveira) end statement said that if one wanted to change the tax they should attempt do so by talking with state law makers. State lawmakers? Duh... (State lawmakers have nothing to do with Federal taxes.) When told of this news coverage Gene just smiled. Visit Gene's blogger site and listen for yourself.
Well there you have it up til now. Gene says that various IRS/Treasury people have told him that they would meet with him and we’ll let you know what happens then. As of day 34 - nothing from live people. A couple of Agents told Gene they would attempt to 'back-channel' to try and help him - no word from them - yet. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's office after prompting requested Gene sign a release so that they might be of assistance - as of day 34 no response. Have you told a friend or two about Gene's death-fast? Have you directed anyone to this website?
Gene requests that others across America join him in solidarity by fasting Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays as the spirit leads. Gene says, “Let us cast wickedness where it belongs and working towards solidarity we can do that.” Listen to what else Gene has to say by visiting http://genechapman.blogspot.com/ by clicking the VISIT BLOGGER button.
I want to see the actual SC rulings on "What is Income"--that makes all the difference in any tax argument.
The US Supreme Court has said, repeatedly, that "income is gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. (1918) 247 US 179; Eisner v. Macomber (1920) 252 US 189; Goodrich v. Edwards (1921) 255 US 527. The US Supreme Court has also said that, since the word "income" is used in the Constitution itself, Congress cannot manipulate the matter conclusively by adopting a peculiar definition for income. Eisner, op.cit.
Income (taxable income) includes "compensation for services" -- that is, wages, salaries, etc. Old Colony Trust Co. v. C.I.R. (1929) 279 US 716; and this holding is implicit in the subsequent cases dealing with income tax of salaries & wages (as far as I know it never held to the contrary).
The Supreme Court once said that the 16th Amendment did not confer a "new" authority on the govt, because (under Article I of the Constitution) previously the federal govt could impose taxes - only they had to be apportioned and so forth; the 16th Amendment didn't create the authority to tax but instead removed the restriction requiring apportionment.
The legislative history of the 16th Amendment - primarily the committee reports and debates over the proposed amendment in Congress in 1910 - show that the 16th Amendment was very definitely intended to impose an income tax upon the wages, salaries, royalties, dividends, etc., received by ordinary individuals. The Supreme Court said that the 16th Amendment's use of "income" is so broad and inclusive, that any form of revenue that is supposed to be exempt from taxation should be explicitly identified in the tax laws, otherwise it is presumed taxable. C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (1955) 348 US 426.
Check into the early SC cases regarding the 16th Amendment. "it conferred no new taxing authority..."
True. However the authority it levy and collect a tax on incomes with regard to employments, professions, trades, occupations, labor, existed prior to the 16th amendment as well as after said amendment:
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." KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
- 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'
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."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:
- "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)
- An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.
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 "
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
- "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
Is your income your property?
The tax is upon the event of a sale of your labor to another, that makes it an indirect tax upon an activity.
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
- 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'
Don't sell you labor or property to other people, and you won't invoke an indirect tax. As soon as you bring a second person into a transaction you create the conditions for an indirect tax upon an activity or event in exchange others as opposed to independant ownership of property:
U.S. v. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)
- " The United States has the power to levy excises upon occupations, and to classify them for this purpose; and need look only to the fact of the exercise of the occupation or calling taxed, regardless of whether such exercise is permitted or prohibited by the laws of the United States or by those of a state. The burden of the tax may be imposed alike on the just and the unjust."
Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:
- The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.
- "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."
- Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
Furthermore:
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107
- "it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable."
Then I may conclude anyone may go the IRS anywhere far because IRS don't have the right to collect according the Constitution being not belonging to Congress!
What do you say? Am I right?
Don't you just wish. I'm afraid you overlooked something there, the IRS are mere agents of the Congress, doing there bidding in accord with Congress' enumerated powers:
Constitution for the United States of America:
- 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."
Congress has the power to authorize an agency to carry the tax law into execution.
But they have doen it anyways on the internet
Anti-Tax Law Evasion Schemes - Law and Arguments (Section I)
And include this case summary
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238 (1991) - The court rejected Schiff's arguments as meritless and upheld imposition of the civil fraud penalty, stating "[t]he frivolous nature of this appeal is perhaps best illustrated by our conclusion that Schiff is precisely the sort of taxpayer upon whom a fraud penalty for failure to pay income taxes should be imposed."
That is why I think Congress doesn't have a right to authorise the agency to collect taxes if that agency is not under his direct command and authority. IRS is not.
Better quit guessing and start doing some actual research. "I think", doesn't count for anything in a courtroom.
The IRS is under the Department of Treasury as provided for in statute (enacted under the power granted to Congress under the Constititution), which is under the executive authority of the president as the executive. Sorry your theory does not wash here, in the statutes, nor in the courts where it counts.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#IRS
26 USC 7801(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states that the administration and enforcement of the Code shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury. 26 USC 7802(a) then says that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the Department of the Treasury who shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Finally, Section 26 USC 7803(a) of the Code states that the Secretary is authorized to employ persons for the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code.
Acting under these laws, the Department of the Treasury has adopted regulations creating the Internal Revenue Service, of which the following is a part:
"The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed." Treas. Reg. Section 601.101(a)
Faced with the claim that the IRS is not an agency of the United States government, the courts have reached the obvious conclusion:
"It is clear that the Internal Revenue Code gave the Secretary of the Treasury full authority to administer and enforce the Code, and the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the tax laws. Pursuant to that legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the Internal Revenue Service, so that the IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, created pursuant to Congressional statute." Snyder v. IRS,
"Plaintiff attempts to circumvent this conclusion by arguing that the IRS is 'a private corporation' because it was not created by 'any positive law' (i.e., statute of Congress) but rather by fiat of the Secretary of the Treasury. Apparently, this argument is based on the fact that in 1953 the Secretary of the Treasury renamed the Bureau of Internal Revenue as the Internal Revenue Service. However, it is clear that the Secretary of the Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7801, and has the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the laws. See 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a). Pursuant to this legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the IRS. 26 C.F.R. § 601.101. The end result is that the IRS is a creature of 'positive law' because it was created through congressionally mandated power. By plaintiff's own 'positive law' premise, the, the IRS is a validly created governmental agency and not a 'private corporation.'" Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F.Supp. 141 (N.D.Ind. 1984).
See also, Cameron v. IRS, 593 F.Supp. 1540, 1549 (N.D.Ind. 1984).
"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system-including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court--has long been established." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), (responding to, among other things, a claim that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority).
Both the irs [read as i ripoff society], and the federal reserve bank are both private corporations, chartered out of the country.
Obviously the Federal Reserve Bank is a private corporation. And your point is???
As far as the IRS, LOL, It is a bureau under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury per
Title 26 USC Section 7801. Authority of Department of the Treasury
(a) Powers and duties of Secretary
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the administration
and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the
supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.
((b) Repealed. Pub. L. 97-258, Sec. 5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat.
1068, 1078)
(c) Functions of Department of Justice unaffected
Nothing in this section or section 301(f) of title 31 shall be
considered to affect the duties, powers, or functions imposed upon,
or vested in, the Department of Justice, or any officer thereof, by
law existing on May 10, 1934.
Congress cann't administer the country.
Right, it can only make law, therefore only the Exectutive department (i.e. IRS, a bureau under the Department of treasury) can administer the tax law.
Which is why the Secretary of Treasury is charged with the oversight and administration of the the tax law.
As such, your argument holds no water, and certainly will not prevent the Department of Justice from pounding on your door when Congress finds it can't collect its tax from you.
Make no mistake, it is the Department of Justice that comes after you via the courts, after the IRS fails to collect via your response to notice that Congress' tax is due.
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.