Posted on 07/15/2007 7:25:50 AM PDT by badgerlandjim
There is no such law.
he Tax Scam Artist’s Lie: Payment of tax is voluntary.
In a similar vein, some argue that they are not required to pay federal taxes because the payment of federal taxes is voluntary. Proponents of this position argue that our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment.
The Truth:
The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.) Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8 th Cir. 1983).
Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Bressler, 772 F.2d 287, 291 (7 th Cir. 1985) - the court upheld Bressler’s conviction for tax evasion, noting, “[he] has refused to file income tax returns and pay the amounts due not because he misunderstands the law, but because he disagrees with it . . . . [O]ne who refuses to file income tax returns and pay the tax owing is subject to prosecution, even though the tax protester believes the laws requiring the filing of income tax returns and the payment of income tax are unconstitutional.
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.
Packard v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 2d 143, 145 (D. Conn. 1998) - the court dismissed Packard’s refund suit for recovery of penalties for failure to pay income tax and failure to pay estimated taxes where the taxpayer contested the obligation to pay taxes on religious grounds, noting that “the ability of the Government to function could be impaired if persons could refuse to pay taxes because they disagreed with the Government’s use of tax revenues.
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8 th Cir. 1993) - the court stated that “[taxpayers’] claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance” and imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,500 “for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protestor arguments.
Perhaps, but how would he claim that he doesn’t “know” he has to file now?
marking
See post #102.
I agree that the payment of income taxes IS NOT voluntary, even if the government relies on voluntary payment for the most part.
Those who argue that they are volunary are idiots and should be convicted; for stupidity, if nothing else.
The real issue is on what income are taxes due. If they are due, they need to be paid.
No.
D. Mandatory Nature of the Federal Income Tax System. Schiff's claim that there is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that requires an individual to file a federal income tax return demands comment. The kindest thing that can be said about Schiff's promotion of this idea is that he is grossly mistaken or a mere pretender to knowledge in income taxation. We have nothing but praise for Mr. Newman's efforts which have helped bring this to light. Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code is entitled "Persons required to make returns of income," and provides that individuals having a gross income in excess of a certain amount "shall" file tax returns for the taxable year. 26 U.S.C. s 6012. Thus, section 6012 requires certain individuals to file tax returns. United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 942, 104 S.Ct. 359, 78 L.Ed.2d 321 (1983). The district court stated that Schiff's argument is "blatant nonsense." Schiff did not challenge this ruling in his cross-appeal.
No what?
Nope, that is not relevant statute. Show me the law passed by the Congress of the United States of America.
Huh? Apparently you don't understand the very basics of the legal system in the US. Appeals court rulings are law. You are requried to pay taxes.
I read 26 US Code 6012, which makes reference to “gross taxable income”. Could you point out where the code identifies “taxable income” or “gross taxable income”.
Based on the rules of construction the terms “taxable income” and “gross taxable income” means there is some income that is not taxable.
I am truly curious as to what the law states as to exactly what is taxable income.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Is it your contention that after this was passed, Congress never followed up and passed an income tax? Just trying to understand your position.
I can't. This is why I said in an earlier post (not to you) that I am open to the possibility that tax payers are correct on some technical point. However, that doesn't matter, because the courts have ruled that you are in fact required to pay taxes along the general lines that we currently pay them. The various arguments persued on this thread have gone to court and lost.
Some people don't understand that in the US court rulings are law. For example, Brown vs. Board of Education made law. It was ruled that seperate but equal was unconstitional, and it was now law that you couldn't seperate kids by the color of their skin.
Likewise, there may be screwy things about the IRS code, but the courts have ruled countless times that you have to pay your taxes along the lines we generally pay them today (and I use that vague phrase to encompass all of the ideas that wages aren't income, etc). All of those things have been tried, and the people who tried them have lost.
woops. I meant "tax protestors".
I think most tax payers who get prosecuted are prosecuted because they file false returns.
Those tried for not filing are generally more successful when they ask the government to cite the law that requires them to file or pay taxes in their particular situation and the government can’t, or won’t.
No matter what you think of the IRS or the tax code, a refusal to answer that question would compel me to vote “not guilty”.
You are twisting the case here.
The jury found him innocent on his liability and his obligation to file if he was liable. They knew he fully intended not to file.
And he had made a living in fees and wages. Yet he had not filed on those items, willfully not filed. And the jury knew it. According to Cryer himself on last Thursday evening's teleconference, the jury found him innocent because the government could not produce the law.
Now you are still a liar because you are 'imagining' what the jury thought and how they decided, and then you are posting it as if it were fact. You are a liar because you do not have the court transcript and the jury deliberations. So you are 'fabricating' a line that attempts to trivialize this case.
On the other hand, my position is not a lie because it rests on the direct words of Cryer himself, and I will bet heavily he is not a liar. He is going to publish the transcripts but he expects the IRS to try and have the court seal the case. But he is ready for them and claims they will not be successful again.
As far as previous court cases where the IRS has lost on an unconstitutional application of tax law, any tax attorney can call up hundreds of cases where the plaintiff taxpayer has prevailed.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Hart/phil.htm
The Appellate Court ruled that the monies received by Murphy were taxable under 26 USC 104 (a), but that this section of the United States Code was unconstitutional on the grounds that the monies received by Murphy were not "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.
Now go ahead and get all pissy, I called you a liar because you are one and I expected you to start flaming your peculiar brand of fartrous fartoxide in response. If you were half a man, you would say "I am sorry, I jumped the gun on the jury, but I want to see the transcripts first before forming an opinion". That would be a sympathetic position, worthy of an iota of respect. But no, you have to speak for the jury when you haven't a clue as to what they actually deliberated on.
Liar!
Now that he has been acquitted, he simply makes the same arguments and tells the jury he was acquitted in an earlier trial. The IRS is not the law. The IRS could solve the problem by simply pointing to the law that requires HIM to pay, but they can't.
I think it would be more accurate to say Cryer did not file a tax return because he had a god faith belief that he was not required to do so in his situation. He also denied liability and if there was no liability, he had no duty to make any payment. The government had to prove all three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction.
Exactly. They cannot point to the actual Public Law, not an ammendment law, but a original source Public Law signed by a President where the tax code derived from.
What we have is alot of pencil pushers in IRS who for decades submitted their amendment drafts to Ways and Means, and having such amendments rubber-stamped without doing the due diligence and verifications on the legality and sourcing.
And what we have ended up with is an agency that thinks they can do whatever they damn well please, including threatening law-abiding and well-meaning Americans.
The Income Tax is going down and the IRS with it. Any of these turds that have IRS or IRS affiliation on their resume are going to be among the most hated Americans that ever existed.
FairTax is a comin’!
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.