Posted on 10/10/2002 8:00:44 AM PDT by Middle Man
FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
October 8, 2002
PO-3516
TREASURY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TAX POLICY PAM OLSON REMARKS TO THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE TAXPAYER ADVOCACY PANEL
Treasury Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Pam Olson met with the new members of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel yesterday. The new Taxpayer Advocacy Panel members are here in Washington for three days of orientation and meetings:
Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today.
The IRS is the largest bureau within the Treasury Department. It touches more citizens on a regular basis than any other agency in the federal government. It is often the only point of contact citizens have with the federal government. No other agency has a greater capacity to affect the way our countrymen feel about their government. The IRS serves an important, but sometimes unpopular role in our country - it collects the funds necessary for our government to operate. Americans must rely on the IRS to administer our tax system in a fair and efficient manner, with as little intrusion into peoples’ lives as possible. Our goal, in which you join us, is to ensure that is the case.
Secretary O’Neill and Commissioner Rossotti have challenged the IRS to deliver world class customer service to America’s taxpayers. Under Commissioner Rossotti’s leadership, the IRS has taken important steps in that direction. Attitudes and practices have changed in ways that will improve tax administration for years to come. The agency is being reshaped to make it more friendly and accessible to taxpayers. Commissioner Rossotti is leaving a legacy of customer service at the IRS, and this program is part of that legacy. Nevertheless, much remains to be done, and that is where you come in.
The government often loses touch with the needs and concerns of the citizenry[!]. The IRS is no exception. For example, taxpayers need to know up-front what their tax paying responsibilities are so they can comply with the law. But, the tax law is far too complex for that to be possible[!]. Individuals and businesses face significant challenges in understanding the tax laws, keeping required records, and filling out numerous complicated and detailed tax forms, which often require working through lengthy and difficult instructions, ending in cumbersome calculations. It is imperative that the government simplify the tax law and its administration to make compliance easier for taxpayers.
Although much simplification depends on congressional action, there is much the IRS and Treasury can accomplish without such action. Unfortunately, rather than simplifying things for taxpayer, the IRS often makes the problem worse by interpreting the law in a manner that is literally or theoretically correct, but that is divorced from reality and that offends common sense[!]. Problems arise when the IRS spends too much time trying to get the perfect answer for every possible situation – the rules become unnecessarily complicated, with too many specialized rules, exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions. The IRS gets bogged down with too many rules, too many procedures, and too much rigidity. And the taxpayers suffer.
(Excerpt) Read more at treas.gov ...
Also, the Constitution does not allow the government to print note currency. That is why the U.S. Mint is part of the federal government, and why the Federal Reserve is (at least nominally) a private banking syndicate.
Also, the Constitution does not allow the government to print note currency.
Please quote that prohibition against the National government. The individual states are clearly prohibited from making a law mandating paper currency, I find no such prohibition as regards the powers of Congress.
Paper currency is nothing more than private debt notes such as federal treasury or bonds, used in trade. The Federal Reserve Note is nothing more than a private bank note used in trade, and blessed by Congress under is authority to borrow money and regulate interstate commerce. The US Treasury still makes coin money, that has never ceased. And if you wish, as a private person, to trade in gold or silver bullion there are no restrictions against such use as long as your trading partners agree to do so, the federal governement just does not mandate the use of metal coinage in all trade and recognises FRNs as a legitimate form for payment of national debt.
Note a power to do a thing does not make such compulsory.
Constitution Article I Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To ...
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; ...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
At the trime the Constitution was written, money was well known in paper forms as well as precious metal coinage.
The individual states of the time abused the monetary system by creating paper money indiscriminately inflating currencies and inducing inflationary as well as complicating trade among the states. Hence the prohibition against individual states coining their own money or mandating the the use of paper money through state law. The power of coining money reserved strictly to the federal government.
I suggest you read Madison's notes of the Constitutional Covention for the concerns in the debate over paper money issues brought up at the time.
Please show us where Congress is prohibited from allowing the use of national debt notes, or is mandated to prohibit the use of paper notes as money under their regulatory powers of interstate commerce.
Futhermore show where the Congress must prohibit my use of Federal Reserve Notes in trade or payment of taxes etc. to government.
To say that Americans have to pay the "income" tax because "we gotta do it" is pretty, well, unlawyerly.
Does this serve better?
A comprehensive FAQ compiled by a lawyer of all the Tax Protest arguments that have failed repeatedly and why:
And there are of course the many Court cases from the Article III Courts, (i.e. federal district, appellate, & Supreme Court) that support all the above.
The ultimate place to go for the answers, is Congress. They, afterall are the ones ultimately responsible for the condition of the Statutes, Regulations and Executive Orders. It is Congress in the end the enacts the enabling legislation and accepts or rejects the content of all Regulations and E.O.s.
The Courts have made it abundantly clear that the arguments presented in the above texts are failed and decided, and provide no relief to the defendant. Infact they have also made it very clear as to where to turn for relief from the very beginning as regards the income tax law.
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321
- 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."
And the standard you must meet to have a successful court case as regards arguments of Tax Law constitutionality:
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
And finally, for a blow by blow of the judgements of modern tax cases where many of the arguments bantered about in this thread have had their day-in-court:
Study the losses, find out why they occurred then build a strategy around something new instead of repeating the same old tired and dead as a door nail tactics. Judges get bored too, and when a Judge gets bored he throws the argument out as frivolous (we heard it before and weren't impressed) and tacks on a few more $K (FRNs acceptable but they will take payment in gold if you insist) on top of whatever else has been laid on you.
Better yet, pound on Congress Critters, and get the law changed. A much more likely scenario than using the same old arguments that have failed hundreds of times.
But then there are those who insist on doing it the hard way:
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a"person" under the tax code.
- KANNE, Circuit Judge.
Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
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."
COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
U.S. v. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)
Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:
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.
Your confusion of money with money substitutes such as Federal Reserve notes is what has allowed millions of Americans to be duped into accepting worthless paper with green ink as "real" money. It makes your lengthy posting as worthless as...a continental.
There are plenty of scams and snake oil out there in regards to income tax avoidance (the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified; the federal government only has jurisdiction over residents of Guam/Puerto Rico/US protectorates and not the sovereign citizens of the several states, etc., etc.), but there are also many legitimate voices being raised against the income tax, including former IRS agents Joe Banister, John Turner and Sherry Jackson.
The fact that a current IRS employee is saying the things Ms. Olson is saying is proof that the "elephant in the living room" is getting too big to ignore.
Your confusion of money with money substitutes such as Federal Reserve notes is what has allowed millions of Americans to be duped into accepting worthless paper with green ink as "real" money.
Why should I want to give the government "real money" (i.e. I presume gold or silver), a substance I would rather keep and hold.
Gold and silver have only the value the individual who wants it recognises in trade, same as a debt note.
If one values gold and siver, why should they be required to give our gold and silver to the government as payment of taxes?
As far as money substitutes are concerned, anything may act as a marker of value in commerce. Seeing as you figure those FRN's are totally valueless, I suggest you just send any you get my way I I'll find a proper home for them.
My problem with the FAIR tax/NRST is that it will simply replace lost revenues -- if the "income" tax is scrapped -- with onerous taxation from a different source. It's strictly a shell game, government won't miss a beat and will continue growing like the cancer it is.
The Founding Fathers intended for government to get all the revenues it needed, to operate and fulfill the limited role it was given, through imposts, excises and duties, UNLESS we were at war and needed to raise a lot of money quickly to fight such a war.
Even in the eventuality of war, a direct tax on the people was made almost impossible to impose and collect due to the apportionment provision of the Constitution.
The fact that we have been "at war" more or less continuously for the last fifty years is the main reason we Americans are expected to fork over 50% or better of the fruits of our labor every year. A quick look at the $400 billion trade deficit, the disappearance of all our industries and jobs and the fact that we are the biggest debtor nation in history is still not enough for some.
Simple, sensible advice.
The laws are fine;
As a matter of fact, they are not:. An income tax is not appropriate to a free nation, no matter who it taxes or how it may be applied.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Alan Keyes refers to the income tax as the slave tax that should be abolished as a moral imperative, and replaced with a National Sales Tax:
Keyes on Taxes & Government Spending:
Alan Keyes Interview with Des Moines Register:
The intent of the structure of the individual income tax is for political and social mainpulation not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country in perpetual legal jeopardy and to create artificial divisions among the electorate (rich vs. poor; big business vs. the little guy; etc).
Considering those factors, it is always good to remember the philosophical roots of the left which can be found here: Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848. Among their recommendations are these:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state ... . Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property ... . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.
it's just the government's and courts' abuse of the laws (and Congress's willingness to look the other way) that I find repugnant.
I will grant that the IRS and it's methods are abusive, that comes from the intrusive nature of an income tax. It is more than beyond time to end it and go to a true consumption tax collected anonomously and universally at point of retail sale.
I'm all for using the notes of a private banking syndicate
Which is what the Federal Reserve is, and the actual function it performs, so what is your beef.
the Fed is not fulfilling any of the functions it was sold to the American people as doing, such as stabilizing the currency or preventing wild swings in its value.
For that matter that is true of most political promises, so what's new. Frankly the economy is outside the control of government or any instutional entity in anycase, the best they can do is make things worse when they try. Economies in the hands politicians serve only to create economic chaos, not stability.
Stabilization of currency or any such goal as a function of government is a political myth used to coerce votes in elections and provide a door for social engineering and serves little purpose for good.
Oh yeah, so sue them! =) It's not illegal if they decide what they can get away with. That is the problem. The people have no power over the IRS. From all the horror stories I've heard, and with Trafficant serving as a prime example, they rule their own roost...period. If we'd all refuse to pay our taxes collectively, perhaps then we could restore power to the people. Until then, we have no voice and no case to make. I'm doubt the Republicans will do much to change the status quo.
Or, we could all just refuse to file and ask our employers to stop collecting the income tax up front, which is completely and totally optionable. But...if everyone didn't do it in unison, the few of us who gave it a run for our money would be in big, big doodie! =)
No flame here! I agree 100%! I just don't see the "sheep" waking up and taking a stand.
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.