Posted on 04/07/2002 8:45:35 AM PDT by LarryLied
You and your pals would LIKE the subject on this thread to be income taxes. MY reading of it has more to do with the gummint finding another way to grab your money:
"Schiff contended the bank acted improperly when it turned over funds in his account"
It's geezy's and your OPINION that the thread is about YOUR preferred topic. But as the saying goes, opinions are like FairTaxers - everyone knows one (too many).
What a nice idea. Can we do lawyers next?
Soap on a rope.
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7080921&tid=bac&sid=7080921&mid=33910
That having been said, in this case we started talking about a Bank Account that was seized, NOT about the Income Tax! It would be helpful to separate those two issues, to avoid confusion.
I still contend that on this issue, the government must carefully utilize a procedure which involves the use of Court Orders. A "Notice Of Intent To Levy" as a administrative procedure, does not rise to the level of Constitutional authority! That is the reason this went to court, and that is the reason which such a procedure will ultimately have to be struck down!
This is what it ultimately comes down to, can constitutional / judicial safeguards be bypassed by an administrative agency, in this case by a low ranking individual within that agency? Of course not! This has NOTHING to do with taxes, Income taxes, or anything else! Either our government has to abide by carefully constructed laws which were placed there to protect the people from arbitrary governmental regulations, or we let them do whatever they want to do....
I still contend that on this issue, the government must carefully utilize a procedure which involves the use of Court Orders.
Unfortunately Congress does not see it that way and that is why the income tax utilizes a procedure providing hearings before an administrative tribunal(Tax Court) or payment of tax under protest with civil action to recover under Article III federal district courts.
The Constitution provides that power to Congress to set the procedural rules for the debt collection procedures relative to the Courts and what courts one may use at which stage of the process.
All that is required for due process, is access to notice, hearing and appeal. That is provided within the actions leading up to and including Notice of intent to Levy & notice of Levy procedures. Even with levy procedures of garnishment in place the potential for appeal to federal court remains after one's refusing right to administrative hearing before tax court and allowing garnishment by default(ignoring notice and refusing administrative hearing rights).
Irwin Schiff is merely in the process of demonstrating the state courts are subject to the Supremacy clause of the Constitution.
I can agree with you about what my beliefs say federal tax law & procedure regarding debt collection under tax law should be. But that and a tin shovel will get us a bucket of sand to pound together and won't mean anything toward ending the income tax, nor striking down that local court's ruling in regards the Supremacy of Federal law in this matter.
This is what it ultimately comes down to, can constitutional / judicial safeguards be bypassed by an administrative agency.
Do judicial safeguards mandate, that notice, demand with option of administrative hearing prior to garnishment for payment of tax debt under Article I courts cannot occur prior to action in Article III courts?
Remember to get to the level of garnishment, one must totally ignore several notices issued by the IRS providing for administrative remedy, as well as the option of paying the tax under protest and seeking redress through civil suit in the courts.
That is the procedure specified in statute and rules laid down in accord with the Constitutional powers of Congress, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in both
Flora vs U.S.(1960), 362. U.S. 145, and on pg. 176
- "The question presented is whether a Federal District Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1346 (a) (1) of a suit by a taxpayer for the refund of income tax payments which did not discharge the entire amount of his assessment."
- "the Government can collect the tax from a District Court suitor by exercising its power of distraint - if he does not split his cause of action - but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. A full-payment requirement will promote the smooth functioning of this system; a part-payment rule would work at cross-purposes with it.
In sum, if we were to accept petitioner's argument, we would sacrifice the harmony of our carefully structured twentieth century system of tax litigation, and all that [362 U.S. 145, 177] would be achieved would be a supposed harmony of 1346 (a) (1) with what might have been the nineteenth century law had the issue ever been raised. Reargument has but fortified our view that 1346 (a) (1), correctly construed, requires full payment of the assessment before an income tax refund suit can be maintained in a Federal District Court."
And BULL v. UNITED STATES(1935) 295 U.S. 247 as I outlined in my prior reply above.
This all lays directly within the powers granted Congress to make such rules under Article III section 2, the necessary & proper clause of Article I section 8, and the Supremacy clause of the Constitution in regard to the statutes of the United States and the requirement specifically that the state judges are bound thereby.
This has NOTHING to do with taxes, Income taxes, or anything else!
This has everything to due with national law regarding the income tax and collection procedure thereunder, and the Supremacy clause of the Constitution binding state judges to the supreme law of the land.
Constitution for the United States of America:
Either our government has to abide by carefully constructed laws which were placed there to protect the people from arbitrary governmental regulations, or we let them do whatever they want to do
Please show me how, under the Constitution, we stop them.
The courts tell us their hands are tied by that constitution. That leaves us, the people of the United States of America, with the burden to make Congress Critters see the light, as to what We the People believe to be the proper rule as regards the collections of tax debts.
Yelling at the Courts or the executive minions of Congress(e.g. IRS etc.) is of little value.
It is Congress that must be addressed to change the rule laid out in statute.
It is up to the people who make Congresses (you and I) to act to assure Congress sees the light and changes the rules to a manner more appropriate to our sensibilities, rather than any mundane expectations Congress may have for collecting the national revenues without the necessity of Article II court intervention prior to collection.
Personally I believe we will have an easier time of changing the stucture and nature of the nations tax law in toto(i.e. repealing the offending income/payroll tax laws all together) and replacing it with something more appropriate to a supposedly free people, than we will be able to get Congress to see the light as regards the procedural issues that make collecting income taxes possible.
Yet Judge Earl ruled, in throwing out the case, that it's not up to his court to decide whether the IRS or its procedures are constitutional.
It isn't, he his bound by the Supremacy Clause and judicial restraint to not waste the Courts resources where issues of law have all ready been in resolved in prior decisions of the higher courts.
See reply #49 above.
Schiff and liberty wins every time someone, who's not required to, stops paying the "income tax".
Schiff is required to.
And there are millions of Americans who don't, and more everyday.
How does that lead to greater liberty?
When we already have 70% of the voting public clamoring for more from government looking for someone else to foot the bill.
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
The Intent of the individual income tax is for political manipulation and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy providing a lever over the heads of disidents and those out of favor with the incumbant political power.
The jeopardy does not go away just because one fails to pay a tax. To the contrary that just assures that government will move to tighten the noose ever more.
Consider:
Plunder Patrol
by Robert W. Lee, New American April 18 '94Selective Enforcement
Writing in The Freeman for March 1994, tax analyst James Payne observed that to function efficiently, a tax system needs citizen cooperation, but in "the United States, high tax rates and the impossibly complex tax code have made tax evasion and avoidance a major industry." Since the tax laws are so complex, virtually everyone can be branded a tax violator at the whim of the IRS. As an IRS memorandum quoted in the March 1980 Saturday Review explained, "Agents should be able to discover errors in 99.9 percent of all returns if they want."
If one does not file, they are in jeopardy of selective enforcement under failure to file statutes at the whim of the DOJ.
If one does file, they are in jeopardy of selective enforcement under audit & levy/garnishment process.
The key is to maintain the legal jeopardy, and potential for control over the individual, not the collection of revenues.
There is no relief to be had in the Courts.
The political axiom is:
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian:
The quotation is from the 1801 collection of his lectures:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
It is up to you to show Congress Critters how it is not to their benefit to continue the shell game.
The income tax is effective as a tool of control because it is an affirmative command to act on which the government may presume one has not acted; and it is particularly suited to divide the citizenry, (rich v. poor, big business v. little guy). Political coercion and legal control go hand in hand to maintain the incumbancy of the career politician.
And their BATF and IRS and other Fed agents are just their Gestapo.
You expect their not to be enforcement for the nation's laws?
I would suggest that, instead of foolishly railing against the minions, one should be going after the head of the snake, CONGRESS!!! with a push to start repealing/amending the most offensive laws.
And quite glaring the government refuses to show the law requiring a citizen living an working in the United States to pay an income tax on his wages.
You don't do very much research before making blanket statements do you.
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.The jury heard not only the United States's evidence against the Meltons, but also the brothers' defense that they believed they were not "persons liable" for federal income tax. The jury rejected the excuse, however, and convicted them on nearly all counts.
- [Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."
- [Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.
- [Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.
- [Subtitle F] 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, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations." United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990). The rarely recognized proposition that, "where the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant--actually or imputedly--lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Mallas, 762 F.2d at 363 (quoting United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir.1974)), simply does not apply here.
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."
26 USC 7805(a) Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - … the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…" [26 USC § 7805]Thus under amplifying Treasury regulations for 26 USC 1, 26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In 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.
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;
COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
- "[T]he principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and therefore has the power to make the benefit complete. Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen."
And they fail to show the legal definition of the term income tax or income pertainin to the individual in the tax code.
It is well defined and not required to be defined in the statutes any more than the meaning of the word "is" is required to be defined in the statutes.
Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380,404-405 (1991)
"It is a statute. I thought we had adopted a regular method for interpreting the meaning of language in a statute: first, find the ordinary meaning of the language in its textual context; and second, using established canons of construction, ask whether there is any clear indication that some permissible meaning other than the ordinary one applies. If not - and especially if a good reason for the ordinary meaning appears plain - we apply that ordinary meaning.
U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)
- "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.
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."
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."
Eisner v. Macomber(1920), 252 U.S. 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)."
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; the income of the government is usually called revenue.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 skillA LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services. As to servants wages, see Chitty, Contr. 171 as to sailors' wages, Abbott on Ship. 473; generally, see 22. Vin. Abr. 406; Bac. Abr. Master, &c., H; Marsh. Ins. 89; 2 Lill. Abr. 677; Peters' Dig. Admiralty, pl. 231, et seq.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
COMPENSATION, contracts. A reward for services rendered.
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 "
HELVERING v. BLISS, 293 U.S. 144 (1934)
- 'Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service, of ...
Which is why we find today,
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>
JAMES v. UNITED STATES, 366 U.S. 213 (1961)
UNITED STATES v. BURKE, 504 U.S. 229 (1992)
They use force to extort money
Somewhat of an overstatement. When you owe the tax and refuse to pay, golly gee whiz they may use force to enforce the law.
and care not whether it's owed or not.
Oh they care, They just assume you owe it when they find income you haven't accounted for. It's up to you to show otherwise with a preponderence of evidence in a civil action for recovery.
The courts are mostly Kangaroo courts to one extent or another.
Nice assertion, that is usually the attitude of those who run afoul of the law. Sour grapes more than substantive.
And the defendent is not made aware whether he is in a criminal case or a civil.
Again merely a blanket assertion of no probative value. If they are coming after you with a statute who's penalties include the possibility of jail time, you can be sure it is criminal. If only fines and collection of debt from you, its clearly civil.
The case filings and hearings make the nature of the action very clear.
And it goes on and on.
You sure make alot of assertions, that is true. Nothing substantive to back them up I notice.
For many folks, their worst mistake in tax matters is in taking the advice of a shade-tree tax lawyer on how to argue their case...
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.