IRS actually fears man who doesn't file taxes

Worldnet Daily ^ | 2 June, 2013 | Jack Minor

[Errant]

Amid an unusual spotlight on IRS conduct, a Colorado businessman contends his case is one the government particularly wants to keep hidden, because it could cause the whole federal agency to self-destruct.

Jeff Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has engaged in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com, admits he has refused to file federal income tax returns since 2002, but he says the IRS is afraid to press criminal charges against him.

[phockthis]

Chapter 4 of the TRUTH!

The TRUTH About Income!
In the last chapter we learned the truth about income tax. In this chapter we will learn the truth about the real definition of income itself! Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is income defined.

So the big question becomes, what IS income? And did you have any that was taxable?

The word “income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, as the court stated in U.S. v. Ballard 535 F.2d 400 at 404, but the Supreme Court has defined it for us in numerous cases.

Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S. 399 (1913) “As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, . . .”
“As to what should be deemed “income” within the meaning of Sec. 38, it of course need not be such an income as would have been taxable as such, for at that time (the 16th amendment not having been as yet ratified) income was not taxable as such by Congress without apportionment according to population, and this tax was not apportioned. Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with the respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government.”

whole article here:
http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap4.html

[Errant]

BTW, to all you hard working, honest IRS agents out there, both Freepers and lurkers. When I and others say IRS, we're referring to those who've made a tyranny of the organization and used it in pursuit of their own self interests (i.e., as it appear this administration has). At least I am.

I've had numerous interactions with agents over the years and have found all to be professional and very easy to work with.

It is a fond wish of mine that you all get to further your careers but in a more positive way, that is better for both for yourselves and our country! ;-)

Just so you know...

[Errant]

Thanks for posting.

[Errant]

The TRUTH About Income!

The fact of the matter is, even if a few have found some loophole, they'll just eliminate it. The real solution, IMO, is abolish "income" taxes, and remove the ability of the Federal government to directly tax individuals. Let the states be the ones to send the taxes up to the feds.

[phockthis]

There’s not enough loop holes

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

[PLMerite]

“...but he says the IRS is afraid to press criminal charges against him.”

So instead they’ll find an excuse to hit him with the IRS SWAT Team and accidentally kill him. Problem solved.

[Errant]

Wow, this tells you all you need to know:

24. Are federal judges required to pay income taxes on their pay, and what are the real implications if they do pay taxes on their pay? Answer: No. Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the District Courts of the United States –- the Article III constitutional courts –- are immune from any taxation of their pay, by constitutional mandate.

The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their pay is proof of undue influence by the IRS, posing as a duly authorized agency of the Executive Branch. See Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).

[edcoil]

Where is it wrong?

[phockthis]

more reading for you, also see my tagline.

Learn the difference between a

U.S. District court and a
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/karmacts.htm

District court of the U.S.
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/dcus.htm

Does a U.S.Attorney have jurisdiction??
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

[familyop]

"Better than all of this garbage about who gets to deduct what, why not just have a sales tax and be done with the income tax?"

Going from history, that would probably lead to high luxury taxes and no sales taxes on cheap necessities. Why? We spend some minimal amounts of money on maintaining ourselves to do labor. We're tools, in a sense. It's already done that way with overly complicated methods, the issue that most interested people agree on. ;-)

[KevinB]

Where is it wrong?

See post 83.

[GeronL]

OK... what if someone paid the taxes due and still didn’t file the paperwork?

[Errant]

The IRS wouldn’t accept payments without accompanying paperwork. There’s no mechanism for that, that I know of other than the withholding your employer sends in on your behalf.

[Truth2012]

“GO SCREW:”

?? Huh? What is that post about?

[Outland]

Just curious about whatever became of Jeff Maehr’s tax problem. I’ve searched all over the net and can’t find a follow-up, a judgement, a settlement.... nothing.