Attorney Tommy Cryer Beats the IRS in court; Jury says not guilty!

You are correct. I said that he intentionally did not file. He intentionally did not file because he found no law that required him to file as his wages and labor were not subject to the income tax. He was in effect not liable and he let the jury know all this according to his teleconference last week.

So I am accurate. He intentionally did not file.

Note that I did not say he intentionally ‘failed’ to file. There is a distinction.

His belief was not only based on belief in God but also as an award winning trial attorney he swore to uphold the law, and in his own words he could not allow the injustice of the Income tax laws to be tolerated any further.

Cryer himself said that his refusal to file was intentional and he made it known that it was intentional.

Yes, it was intentional. He did not believe he had an obligation to file.

You are twisting the case here.

No. He was charged with willful failure to file, which requires a finding that he believed he had to file, but did not. The jury evidently found that he did not believe he had to file.

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.

No they did not. His liability was not at question. That is a civil matter. That is simple fact.

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.

Right. Cryer made the case that he did not believe he had to file, and the jury believed him.

Now you are still a liar

What did I lie about?

because you are 'imagining' what the jury thought and how they decided, and then you are posting it as if it were fact.

I'm lying because I simply posted what the charge was, and what the jury found? They found him not guilty of willfully failing to file.

You are a liar because you do not have the court transcript and the jury deliberations.

Dumb argument. He simply reflected that he was found innocent of what he was charged with. He was charged with willful failure to file. I stated that the jury found him innocent of such. That is a fact.

So you are 'fabricating' a line that attempts to trivialize this case.

And after numerous attempts, you fail to cite the cases that you claim exist.

On the other hand, my position is not a lie because it rests on the direct words of Cryer himself

The out of court statements of a defendant are in no way fact.

, and I will bet heavily he is not a liar.

I don't know.

He is going to publish the transcripts

There are no transcripts of jury deliberations.

but he expects the IRS to try and have the court seal the case.

Maybe.

But he is ready for them and claims they will not be successful again.

We'll see.

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

I'll check it out. But sure, the IRS has applied tax law unconstitutionally, but I'll be none of these cases have to do with bogus arguments about wages not being taxable income, and other tax protestor lies.

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.

We'll see what kind of income it was.

Now go ahead and get all pissy,

Me? The record clearly shows you resorting to personal attack when asked to back up your statements.

you a liar because you are one

By simply stating that he was aquitted of what he was charged with, while you are climaing he was aqcuitted of something he wasn't charged with.

I expected you to start flaming your peculiar brand of fartrous fartoxide in response.

The 'ole "pre-emptive flaming defense.

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".

If you weren't a moron you would see that you can not be aquitted of something you were not charged with.

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.

Yet, you claim to speak for the jury.

Liar!

About what?

I just read your link. The case was about whether or not a whistleblower settlement was taxable or not. Somehow you think this applies to your bogus claim that wages are not income. You are dumber than I thought.

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.

If you had a basic understanding of how laws and the judicial system worked, you would know that court rulings are law. When the Supreme Court ruled on Brown vs. Board of Education, it immediately became illegal to segregate schools. They did not have to wait until the state legislatures passed laws acknowledging such.

Under your theory, something is not law unless the legislature explicitly says such.

FYI, the Internal Revenue Code is law. It had been ratified by Congress. Arguments to the contrary are bogus.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986). More recent amendments to the Internal Revenue Code (as well as other public laws) can be found on-line through the “Thomas” web site maintained by the Library of Congress.

Here is what the code says is taxable income...

Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states defines “gross income” (which is the starting point for the calculation of taxable income) as follows:

“Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived....”

Once again, can you cite the law that required Cryer to pay the taxes in dispute?

Please define what you believe "law" to mean. Is it something passed by congress and approved by the president?

Like I said, these “true believers” are ignorant about what a law is.

§ 61. Gross income defined How Current is This?

(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106503,00.html

Anti-Tax Law Evasion Schemes - Law and Arguments (Section II)

II. The Meaning of Income: Taxable Income and Gross Income

A. Contention: Wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income.

This argument asserts that wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income, because there is allegedly no taxable gain when a person “exchanges” labor for money. Under this theory, wages are not taxable income because people have basis in their labor equal to the fair market value of the wages they receive; thus, there is no gain to be taxed. Some take a different approach and argue that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain or profit.

The Law: For federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, “an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived.”

All compensation for personal services, no matter what the form of payment, must be included in gross income. This includes salary or wages paid in cash, as well as the value of property and other economic benefits received because of services performed, or to be performed in the future. Furthermore, criminal and civil penalties have been imposed against individuals relying upon this frivolous argument.

Relevant Case Law:
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955) - Referring to the statute’s words “income derived from any source whatever,” the Supreme Court stated, “this language was used by Congress to exert in this field ‘the full measure of its taxing power.’ . . . And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.”

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) - The Supreme Court found that payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which a taxpayer has complete dominion.

United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029 (1990) - The court stated, “[e]very court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”

Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5 th Cir. 1981) - The court rejected as “meritless” the taxpayer’s contention that the “exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction . . . .” Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff’d, 614 F.2d 159 (8 th Cir. 980) - The court said the entire amount received from the sale of one’s services constitutes income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8 th Cir. 1983) - The court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the taxpayer’s contention that wages and salaries are not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment is “totally lacking in merit.”

United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9 th Cir. 1981) - The court affirmed Romero’s conviction for willfully failing to file tax returns, finding, in part, that “[t]he trial judge properly instructed the jury on the meaning of [’income’ and ‘person’]. Romero’s proclaimed belief that he was not a ‘person’ and that the wages he earned as a carpenter were not ‘income’ is fatuous as well as obviously incorrect.” Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 413 (1984) - The court rejected the argument that wages are not income, sustained the failure to file penalty, and awarded damages of $5,000 for pursuing a position that was “frivolous and groundless . . . and maintained primarily for delay.”

Cullinane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-2, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1192, 1193 (1999) - Noting that “[c]ourts have consistently held that compensation for services rendered constitutes taxable income and that taxpayers have no tax basis in their labor,” the court found Cullinane liable for the failure to file penalty, stating, “[his] argument that he is not required to pay tax on compensation for services does not constitute reasonable cause.”

B. Contention: Only foreign-source income is taxable.

Some maintain that there is no federal statute imposing a tax on income derived from sources within the United States by citizens or residents of the United States. They argue instead that federal income taxes are excise taxes imposed only on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the privilege of receiving income from sources within the United States. The premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911, et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections.

The Law: As stated above, for federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treasury Regulation § 1.1-1(b) provides, “[i]n general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.” I.R.C. sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country. These sections neither specify whether income is taxable, nor do they determine or define gross income. Further, these frivolous assertions are clearly contrary to well-established legal precedent. “Recently the IRS explained its position on the I.R.C. 861 argument in Rev. Rul. 2004-30 and on the I.R.C. 911 argument in Rev. Rul. 2004-28.”

Relevant Case Law:
Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138 (2000) - The court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as “reminiscent of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.”

Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995) - The court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that the only sources of income for purposes of section 61 are listed in section 861.

Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000) - The court labeled as “frivolous” the position that only foreign income is taxable.

Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202 (1993) - The court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that his income was exempt from tax by operation of sections 861 and 911, noting that he had no foreign income and that section 861 provides that “compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States . . . are items of gross income.”

C. Contention: Federal Reserve Notes are not income.

Some assert that Federal Reserve Notes currently used in the United States are not valid currency and cannot be taxed, because Federal Reserve Notes are not gold or silver and may not be exchanged for gold or silver. This argument misinterprets Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

The Law: Congress is empowered “[t]o coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of weights and measures.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 5. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits the states from declaring as legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress’ power to declare the form of legal tender. See 31 U.S.C. § 5103; 12 U.S.C. § 411. In United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8 th Cir. 1978), the court affirmed a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, rejecting the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not subject to taxation. “Congress has declared Federal Reserve notes legal tender . . . and federal reserve notes are taxable dollars.” Id. at 1112. The courts have rejected this argument on numerous occasions.

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10 th Cir. 1980) - The court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer’s argument that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”

United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9 th Cir. 1984) - The court upheld the taxpayer’s criminal conviction, rejecting as “frivolous” the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not valid currency, cannot be taxed, and are merely “debts.”

United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28, 30 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1064 (1973) - The court rejected as “clearly frivolous” the assertion “that the only ‘Legal Tender Dollars’ are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed” and affirmed Daly’s conviction for willfully failing to file a return.

Jones v. Commissioner, 688 F.2d 17 (6 th Cir. 1982) - The court found the taxpayer’s claim that his wages were paid in “depreciated bank notes” as clearly without merit and affirmed the Tax Court’s imposition of an addition to tax for negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations.

Note: This page contains one or more references to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), Treasury Regulations, court cases, or other official tax guidance. References to these legal authorities are included for the convenience of those who would like to read the technical reference material. To access the applicable IRC sections, Treasury Regulations, or other official tax guidance, visit the Tax Code, Regulations, and Official Guidance page. To access any Tax Court case opinions issued after September 24, 1995, visit the Opinions Search page of the United States Tax Court.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106509,00.html

Talking Points

* All citizens must comply with the requirements of the tax law to file returns and pay taxes. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans recognizes their civic duty and voluntarily complies with their tax-filing obligation. Taxpayers who fail to file income tax returns and pay taxes pose a serious threat to tax administration and the American economy. Their actions undermine public confidence in the Service’s ability to administer the tax laws fairly and effectively.

* Whether because of an inability to pay or severe procrastination, some citizens drop out of the tax system. The IRS has made attempts to make it easier for persons to voluntarily comply with the tax laws and to bring themselves current on any outstanding filings or tax due. Assistance is provided to those persons to resolve issues that caused them to drop out of the tax system and bring them back into compliance.

* When the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified (February 3, 1913) giving Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes on incomes”, citizens began arguing that it was not properly ratified and income taxes are illegal. Unfortunately, some citizens continue to raise such arguments in spite of the fact that they have no basis in law and the courts have repeatedly rejected their arguments as frivolous.

* Unscrupulous promoters and their followers have long employed frivolous arguments concerning the legality of the income tax as pretexts to enrich themselves or evade their taxes. Their motivation is usually monetary, not some legitimate purpose or belief. Anti-taxation groups have been around for a long time. They are small but vocal. Though the leadership of these movements used different arguments to gain followers, they all share one thing in common; they received substantial sentences in a federal prison for their activities. Their followers paid a steep price for following bad advice. Some were prosecuted, many more were involved in years of litigation and ultimately had to pay all taxes owed along with penalties and interest.

* People who are considering involving themselves in these anti-taxation “programs” should consider the consequences. Tax evasion is a serious crime punishable by imprisonment, fines, and the imposition of civil penalties.

* Complicated arguments against the American tax system are built by stringing together unrelated ideas plucked from widely conflicting court rulings, dictionary definitions, government regulations, and other sources. Some of the most popular arguments follow:

I. Compensation Argument

Wages, tips and other compensation received for personal services are not income because there is allegedly no taxable gain when a person “exchanges” labor for money.

The Truth: The Internal Revenue Code defines gross income as income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services.

II. Internal Revenue Code Arguments

(1) There is no Internal Revenue Code that imposes taxes;
(2) Only “individuals” are required to pay taxes; or
(3) The IRS can only assess taxes against people who file returns.

The Truth: The tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms “voluntarily” rather than have the government do it for them. However, any taxpayer whose income falls below the statutory amount, does not have to file a return.

III. Sixteenth Amendment Argument

The Constitutional Amendment establishing the basis for income tax was never properly ratified.

The Truth: The Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified in 1913, and it states “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.”

IV. Constitutional Argument

Filing a Form 1040 violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The Truth: The courts have consistently held that disclosure of the type of routine financial information required on a tax return does not incriminate an individual or violate the right to privacy.

V. Religious Arguments

Individuals invoke the Freedom of Religion clause of the First Amendment by taking a vow of poverty or by fraudulently claiming charitable contributions of 50% or more of their adjusted gross income.

The Truth: Taking a purported vow of poverty or claiming fraudulent contributions to filter income through a church is not legal. Many fraudulent religious organizations use funds for personal expenses.

VI. Forming a Trust Argument

Forming a business trust to hold your income and assets will avoid taxes. A family estate trust will allow you to reduce or eliminate your tax liability.

The Truth: Although there are legitimate trusts and legitimate reasons why individuals establish trusts, establishing a trust, foreign or domestic, for the sole purpose of hiding your income and assets from taxation is illegal and will not absolve you of your tax liability. The underlying claims for many “untaxing” trust packages rely on other frivolous arguments—arguments that have subjected promoters, as well as willing participants, to criminal penalties. See IRS Publication 2193 (PDF), “Should Your Financial Portfolio Include ‘Too Good To Be Trusts?’”

* Some American citizens use these and other clever arguments advocating non-compliance with the tax laws. Don’t be misled. Inspect their promotional material carefully. Aside from being false and misleading, you will notice the materials often contain elaborate disclaimers such as “this report is offered as vehicle for discussion and debate and for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied on as a substitute for proper research and inquiries into original sources of authority.” Actually, many of these promoters don’t even follow their own advice but choose to pay their own taxes.

* The IRS will:
(1) Assist taxpayers who have been misled to correct their returns; and
(2) Vigorously pursue prosecution and prison sentences for individuals who violate the tax laws.

Note: This page contains one or more references to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), Treasury Regulations, court cases, or other official tax guidance. References to these legal authorities are included for the convenience of those who would like to read the technical reference material. To access the applicable IRC sections, Treasury Regulations, or other official tax guidance, visit the Tax Code, Regulations, and Official Guidance page. To access any Tax Court case opinions issued after September 24, 1995, visit the Opinions Search page of the United States Tax Court.

And of course you have not read relevant Supreme Court rulings that say the 16th Amendment did not give to the Government a third way of taxation nor did it increase the Government’s taxation authority.

If there is no statute and there is no law passed by Congress, then the rulings of any court stating that one must pay tax of one’s income are completely spurious.

Quoting cases doesn’t do it.

Show me the law passed by the Congress of the United States of America that says one must pay a federal tax upon one’s income.

Don’t be ridiculous. Bills become laws when passed by Congress so long as they do not contradict the Constitution are at a later time set aside.

Show me a law passed by Congress that says one must pay taxes upon one’s income to the Federal Government.

And of course you have not read relevant Supreme Court rulings that say the 16th Amendment did not give to the Government a third way of taxation nor did it increase the Government’s taxation authority.

You are actually claiming that the 16th amendment did not in fact authorize they levying of income taxes, as it clearly says it does? Please cite the rulings.

If there is no statute and there is no law passed by Congress, then the rulings of any court stating that one must pay tax of one’s income are completely spurious.

So, you don't believe that anyone had to abide by Brown v. Board of Education?

Quoting cases doesn’t do it.

If you have no understanding of our legal system, then you might think that way.

Show me the law passed by the Congress of the United States of America that says one must pay a federal tax upon one’s income.

Easy. It's all over the Internal Revenue Code, and the Internal Revenue Code was codified in the Internal Revenue Act of 1986.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

Income Tax

“There’s just no law requiring you to pay federal income taxes.”

The most basic myth of tax protestors is that there is simply no law mandating the payment of income taxes. Frequently one can observe anti-tax types to say something like, “if only someone would show me the law that says that I have to file a tax return and pay taxes, I’d be happy to do it.” I have a strong suspicion that people who say that are not serious, but I’m going to take them at their word. Here are the laws that (a) impose an income tax on you, (b) require you to file an income tax return, and (c) require you to pay taxes:
§ 1

The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of laws passed by the Congress (“Title” basically means “Volume” when applied to the U.S. Code as a whole, so Title 26 is what might more casually be called Volume 26).

The Internal Revenue Code is the law that requires people to pay taxes (and yes, the Internal Revenue Code is a law — for more detail on this point click here).

The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is § 1(c), which states:
26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

followed by a table specifying the tax rates on various income amounts. If you are married, you are covered by the similar provision at § 1(a). There are also a couple of other possible filing statuses covered elsewhere in § 1 (such as “head of household”), but the basic point is that section 1 imposes an income tax.
§ 61 and § 63

Section 1, it will be observed, imposes the tax on your “taxable income.” How do you know what that is? Section 63 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 63, defines “taxable income” to mean “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by chapter 1 of the Code, so now we need to know what “gross income” is. So we turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, which provides the critical definition:
26 U.S.C. § 61

[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
. . .

There are 15 items in the full list (I’ve only quoted the first seven), but the key part of the definition is that gross income means “all income from whatever source derived.”

So, between sections 1, 61, and 63, we see that the tax code passed by Congress imposes a tax on your taxable income, which includes all your income, from whatever source derived, less the deductions allowed by the tax laws. So the tax laws do impose a tax on you.

Now, how do you know that you have to file a tax return and actually pay the tax?
§ 6012 and § 6151

Section 6151 of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, says:
26 U.S.C. § 6151

[W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

So according to this section, if you are required to file a tax return, you are required to pay the tax owed, to pay it at the time you file your return, and to pay it to the internal revenue officer with whom you file the return.

But who says you’re required to file the return? Turn back to section 6012(a) of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a), which provides:
26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)

Returns with respect to income taxes * * * shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount * * *.

The “exemption amount” is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 151(d) as $2000, adjusted for inflation since 1989. You can see the exact amount for the current tax year in the IRS instructions to form 1040. If you have more income than this amount, section 6012 requires you to file a tax return (except that if you’re married, section 6013 gives you the option of filing a joint return with your spouse).

So there it is:

Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
§ 6072

And when is your return due? Section 6072 provides the answer: “[R]eturns made on the basis of the calendar year shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year.” This is the statutory basis for the familiar April 15 tax deadline.

Of course, there’s a lot more to know if you want to achieve a full understanding of the tax system. For example, other statutes besides the ones quoted above create the extensive system of tax “withholding,” whereby you actually pay your taxes on your wages in advance, each time you receive a paycheck, so that on the day your return is due the government usually ends up owing you a refund. If you have substantial amounts of unearned income, there are also other statutes that require you to pay estimated taxes each quarter. And, needless to say, there are innumerable, complex statutes that more specifically define how much income tax you owe. But you only need to look at a few, relatively simple statutes to see that the duty to pay income tax is mandatory. You can look up the above statutes yourself in any law library (just ask the librarian to help you find Title 26 of the United States Code.) These statutes demonstrate that the claim that there is no law requiring anyone to file income tax returns or pay income tax is complete nonsense.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/code.htm

Income Tax

“The Internal Revenue Code is Not Law.”

Some tax protestors like to argue that we can only be taxed by law, not by some mere “code” like the Internal Revenue Code. These protestors are often under the mistaken impression that the Internal Revenue Code was written by the IRS.
Basic Answer

This argument simply reflects ignorance of what the Internal Revenue Code is and where it came from.

The Internal Revenue Code is law. It was passed by the United States Congress. It does not come from the IRS. The IRS writes regulations that help implement the Code, but the Code itself was passed by Congress. Under the Constitution, if a bill is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, it is the law. That’s what happened with the Internal Revenue Code, so the Code is the law.

The Code is called the “Internal Revenue Code” because that’s the name chosen for it by the Congress. (See section 7701(a)(29).) So it does have the word “Code” in its name. But it is, absolutely, law passed by the Congress.
More Detail

Here’s some further detail for readers who’d like to know the exact dates and citations for the law:

The Internal Revenue Code wasn’t passed all at once. Congress is constantly tinkering with and amending it. The last comprehensive overhaul of the Code occurred on October 22, 1986, when Congress passed Public Law 99-514, entitled “A bill to reform the internal revenue laws of the United States.”

There have been many amendments since then, but each amendment was passed by Congress. The current Internal Revenue Code is the result of the original law plus all the amendments over time. But the Code is still made up of laws passed by the Congress. It was not written by the IRS.

Laws passed by Congress can be found in a series of books called the Statutes at Large. If you want to look up the 1986 law, you can find it in Volume 100 of the Statutes at Large, beginning at page 2085.

A more convenient source is Title 26 of the United States Code. The problem with trying to find the law in the Statutes at Large is that, in order to tell whether the part you’re reading (say, the 1986 tax law) is still good, current law, you’d have to read the entire Statutes at Large to see whether any later statute repealed or amended it. So you’d have to look through every statute that Congress has passed in the intervening decades. That’s not very practical.

Fortunately, someone else has done that for you. The Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives compiles the Statutes at Large into a more usable source known as the United States Code. Whenever Congress passes a law that amends an already existing law (such as the income tax law), the Revisers strike out the old, obsolete portion and replace it with the new portion. That way, the U.S. Code always reflects the most current law.

But in any event, it’s still the law as passed by the United States Congress. The Revisers have just compiled it into a more convenient, usable form.
Still More Detail

Some confusion may result from the fact that some Titles in the United States Code (but not Title 26) have been enacted as “positive law.” In published editions of the U.S. Code, these titles are marked with an asterisk, and Title 26 is not one of them.

All this means is that, for some Titles, Congress, usually after many years of tinkering with and amending the Title, decided to pass one, single statute embodying all the law in the entire Title. When this is done, that one law in the Statutes at Large can also be used as a Title of the U.S. Code (until it gets amended again).

Congress never did this for Title 26. Title 26 is the compiled result of many separate statutes passed over a period of decades.

But that doesn’t matter. Title 26 is still the law as passed by the Congress. Law created by many statutes over time is still law.

You really make me laugh.

He just gave you the law. But, go on, pretend there was no 16th amendment, or income tax, etc. You are welcome to be an idiot, just stop encouraing others to do idiotit things like not pay their taxes.

This all goes hand in hand with the fact WE are supposed to follow a bogus law while the illegals break the law every day with no consequence.

I would be laughing too if the damage done by scumbag protestors was funny

http://www.mlmwatchdog.com/Report_G_tax_scam.html

HOT AGAIN FOR 2007!

INCOME TAXES ILLEGAL? PROMOTERS RUN A RACKET WITHIN A TAX SCAM

TAX PROTESTOR LEADERS MAKE MEGA $$$ OFF SELLING B.S.! THEN YOU GO TO JAIL!

The last two years I have been trying to help folks who got suckered by Tax Evasion Guru's. How! Giving evidence to prisons and probation officers to try to help get innocent folks out of jail. Why? Because these folks (innocents) were scammed. Doctors, mothers, nice folk that are in jail and lost their house, cars and children because of fines and prison. Why do this? Because I believe the U.S. Government should move faster to shut down these scumbag tax evasion promoters and put them in jail - FAST!

Network Marketers being sweet independent souls by nature are suckers for this BS. Sandy BotkinS CPA, JD and your editor fought this crapola in the middle 90’s and it coming back again! Global Prosperity put bullet holes in my car. A big problem is we can’t search the tax records of most of these Scammers making money off of selling you information that income taxes are not legal. If we could we’d would find out that most of them do pay taxes. They are just suckering others into going to jail so they can make money off of tapes, CD, books, and worthless legal fees! YOU ARE BEING SCAMMED AND IT CAN PUT YOU IN JAIL!

If you want to tax protest the MLM WatchDog’s advice is move outside the U.S. Why? It will cost you at least $500,000 in legal fees to get where wealth airline pilot, Mr. Cheek did before the Supreme Court! Other countries like in South America for that, you could probably buy off a high court! THE U.S. NO WAY!

THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE FINAL SAY PERIOD ZIP ZERO

A BIG BRICK WALL for tax protesters is found in the Cheek Doctrine (Supreme Court decided January 8th 1991 with respect to arguments about "constitutionality." Under the Doctrine, the mistaken belief that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified and the mistaken belief that the Federal income tax is otherwise unconstitutional are not treated as beliefs that one is not violating the "tax law" — i.e., these errors are not treated as being caused by the "complexity of the tax law."

In the Cheek case the Supreme Court stated on Jan 8th 1991: Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States

The Court continued: As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.

WatchDog Note: Cheek actually hung himself by pointing out that arguments about constitutionality of Federal income tax laws "reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable," (Quote by the Court).

Click the link below – Study this Warning page for law enforcement on Tax Protesters and 16th Amendment Junk. Notice the attempted TAX bombings? Great join one of the Fringe tax protester groups and get put on a list of people that are nut cases for forever! Are you nuts! Run from any of these assholes who will get you put in Jail!

(we have the best tax system in the world! Do I love it...no! But have been to 90% of countries in the world and there is only one I prefer to pay taxes in....the U.S. Small link but click study history

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/TPM.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=21

Scammer "Judge Rizzo" and Wife Sentenced to Prison

TAX EVASION SCAM

“The government will not tolerate abusive tax schemes that use offshore accounts to illegally escape taxes,” said Nancy Jardini, IRS Chief, Criminal Investigation. “Those Americans who file accurate, honest and timely returns can be assured that the government will hold accountable those who don’t.” “It is tragic when a former member of the judiciary, charged with upholding the law, encourages others to violate those laws,” said Paul K. Charlton, U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona.

As described in the plea agreements, from 1999 to 2002 John Rizzo was a prominent speaker at offshore seminars hosted by Institute of Global Prosperity (Global Prosperity). At these seminars, Mr. Rizzo promoted the Millennium 2000 Reliance Defense Program (Millennium Program) to thousands of people resulting in more than $4 million in sales revenue for the Rizzos. The program included written materials taxpayers could use to establish purported good faith reliance defenses against potential criminal tax prosecutions. At an earlier court hearing, a videotape was played showing Mr. Rizzo appearing at Global Prosperity seminars wearing judicial robes and portraying himself as a former judge and an expert on tax law.

THE CROOKED JUDGE SOLD OUT FOR MONEY SCAMMING INNOCENT PEOPLE!

MANY OF WHICH ARE IN JAIL TODAY FOR SWALLOWING HIS TAX EVASION BS!

The Rizzos also admitted that they provided opinion letters, materials and documentation that claimed, among other things, that taxpayers could lawfully stop filing income tax returns and stop their employers from withholding income taxes from their wages. This claim was based upon the long-rejected notion that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution had not been legally ratified.

The Rizzos further admitted that they concealed the income they earned from the sales of the Millennium Program through various means. They used offshore bank accounts, third-party merchant accounts to process credit card sales, and requested payments from customers in cash, money orders, and checks with the payee lines left blank. John Rizzo also admitted to knowingly providing false and misleading testimony to a grand jury by testifying that he and his wife filed federal tax returns for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001, when in fact, he and his wife had not filed such tax returns as required by law. Ed Note: More Crooks Go Down - Keep reading!

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005

WWW.USDOJ.GOV

“GLOBAL PROSPERITY” PRINCIPAL CONVICTED OF TAX FRAUD

WASHINGTON, D.C.-Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, John McKay, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, and Nancy Jardini, Chief, Internal Revenue (IRS) Service Criminal Investigation Division, announced today that at the federal courthouse in Seattle, Washington, Dwayne Robare pled guilty to superseding information charging him with income tax evasion for the 2000 tax year.

On May 12, 2004, Mr. Robare was indicted-along with alleged Institute of Global Prosperity founders Daniel Anderson, David Struckman, Lorenzo (“Zo”) Lamantia (also known as “Lorenzo Milano”), and Kuldip Singh-on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the IRS. Mr. Robare faces a maximum potential sentence of five years in jail, followed by up to three years of supervised release, $250,000 in fines, and liability for the costs of prosecution

PYRAMID SCHEME MONEY MAVEN TO BE SENTENCED

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TAX

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2003 (202) 514-2007

JURY CONVICTS INSTITUTE OF GLOBAL PROSPERITY PARTICIPANT OF CONSPIRACY TO STRUCTURE CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Attorney General Eileen J. O’Connor of the Tax Division announced that a federal jury in Seattle returned a guilty verdict against Laura Jean Marie Struckman, a participant in the Institute of Global Prosperity (IGP). She was convicted of conspiracy to structure a financial transaction.

(Ed. Note: Primary Action in prosecuting Pyramid Scheme)

Trial evidence showed that Struckman, formerly of Renton, Washinton, and an unindicted co-conspirator engaged in a 14-month conspiracy from June 1997 through August 1998 to evade currency reporting requirements by making cash withdrawals of over $960,000 in 122 separate transactions, none of which exceeded $10,000. The evidence further established that Struckman was the co-signer on three nominee bank accounts, opened at the U.S. Bank of Washington, into which she and another individual deposited over $3.7 million, earned from IGP, during the time period of the conspiracy.

Struckman faces a maximum statutory penalty of five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. She is scheduled to be sentenced by the Chief U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour Aug. 8, 2003.

(Ed. Note: Secondary Actions in prosecuting Pyramid Scheme)

In other cases related to IGP, Jeffrey and Shoshana Szuch and Margo Jordan all pleaded guilty to using foreign bank accounts to commit tax evasion. According to indictments in those cases, the government showed that IGP was an organization that hosted offshore seminars for promoters of abusive trusts and anti-tax schemes. IGP was also known by other names, including Global Prosperity Marketing Group (GPMG) and Global Prosperity Group (GPG). Members of IGP marketed and sold various IGP products, including an "education course" named "Global 1" priced at $1,250; a ticket to a three-day offshore seminar named "Global 2" priced at $6,250; and a ticket to a five-day offshore seminar named "Global 3" priced at $18,750. The indictments alleged that the Global 2 and Global 3 seminars brought together portions of the IGP membership to hear, among other things, presentations by individuals and organizations involved in the sale and operation of foreign trusts designed in part to conceal income from the Internal Revenue Service.

Ed. Note: As you can see this illegal Pyramid Scheme rolled some serious money out of the pockets of suckers who wanted to believe taxation was not legal. On top of that the Pyramid Scheme operators scammed life savings investment money right and left from Pyramid Scheme participants who believed their 10% returns (a month) were real.

The Struckman case was investigated by agents of IRS Criminal Investigation. It was prosecuted by Tax Division trial attorneys Mark T. Odulio and Christopher J. Maietta.