SIGN THE PETITION AT HTTP://WWW.VOTR.ORG. Then find out how you can do more to end America’s peculiar SPRING MADNESS.
Posted on 10/10/2002 8:00:44 AM PDT by Middle Man
SIGN THE PETITION AT HTTP://WWW.VOTR.ORG. Then find out how you can do more to end America’s peculiar SPRING MADNESS.
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.
Hate to be the one to inform you but in the view of the "Founding Fathers" a retail sales tax is an excise or duty.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.
"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
There was also a huge win against the California Franchise Tax Board last year, but it took the plaintiff years and much $$$ to bring it to trial. I'll try to get the cite on that one too.
You see, another problem is when the government announces that they are going after middle- and low-income "tax dodgers", what they're really saying is "We're going to persecute those we know can't afford to take us on in court due to lack of resources". This is another reason the legal profession is mum on IRS abuses; they ultimately reap the rewards from all the ensuing litigation.
It is long past time to end the Income Tax once and for all and get rid of the intrusive anal exam of family finances by government. Support the enactment of the bills before congress that would actually achieve that.
Billy Tauzin offers one solution, a 15% retail sales tax that replaces all income taxes but doesn't touch SS/Mediscare payroll taxes, that comes close to meeting the essentials of what it takes to reverse trend?:
H.R.2717
Sponsor: Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy)(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity for families by repealing the income tax, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
John Linder (R Texas) offers a more comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a revenue neutral replacement:
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
See Also: Fairtax FAQ (NSBU)
Other bills, moving in the proper direction are:
To get the ball rolling and focus Congress Critter's attention:
H.R.2714
Sponsor: Rep Largent, Steve(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
A bill to prohibit he imposition of any tax by the Internal Revenue Code: (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2005.
To sunset some agencies we don't need and rein in their expenditures:
H.R.2373
Sponsor: Rep Brady, Kevin(introduced 6/28/2001)
Title: To provide for the periodic review of the efficiency and public need for Federal agencies, to establish a Commission for the purpose of reviewing the efficiency and public need of such agencies, and to provide for the abolishment of agencies for which a public need does not exist.
Modification then enact and ratify:
H.J.RES.45
Sponsor: (introduced 4/25/2001)
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2001 Referred to House subcommitte.
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the Untied States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.
(Modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR2525 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)
And to keep em reminded that there is indeed a Constitution to pay attention to:
H.R.175
Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001)
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.
Believe me, if I thought passage and/or repeal of a certain bill would do the trick, I would be tramping all over the Senate and Houser office buildings this very moment. There's always a huge temptation to work for a political or collective end. I just don't believe that will fly. The present holders of political power will not surrender it because a sizeable minority creates a fuss; they will surrender it only when we deprive them of our money and of their ability to collect others'.
And for that reason, collective action is irrelevant; larger numbers of ACTIVE INDIVIDUALS alone will do the job. I think Irwin Schiff offers the best approach to defeating the income tax. Even though he just lost his court case against the Bank of America in Nevada, B of A immediately changed its depositor's agreement to cover its a** in the future. So, as big as they are, he still cost them gadzillions in printing costs and legal fees. ;^)
The present holders of political power will not surrender it because a sizeable minority creates a fuss; they will surrender it only when we deprive them of our money and of their ability to collect others'.
Ever here inflation tax. Government will always fund its operations, whether by taxation or infating the money supply make no difference to the end result.
When taxes are visible and impact all to a similar degree, the people are at least encouraged to can the culprits, representatives in Congress.
Patrick Henry & Alexander Hamilton had the correct views of the issue:
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #21:
Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference.
"A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."
"As revenue is the essential engine by which the means of answering the national exigencies must be procured, the power of procuring that article in its full extent must necessarily be comprehended in that of providing for those exigencies."
"As theory and practice conspire to prove that the power of procuring revenue is unavailing when exercised over the States in their collective capacities, the federal government must of necessity be invested with an unqualified power of taxation in the ordinary modes. "
Coupled with the need of an informed electorate, the excise(i.e. consumption tax) collected in full view at retail sale meets the condition of convenience, and visiblity necessary to the functioning of a representative republic.
I think Irwin Schiff offers the best approach to defeating the income tax.
Even though he just lost his court case against the Bank of America in Nevada, B of A
He looses every case he has been involved in. An expensive way to go, even with occasionally winning all expense paid vacations gratis the fed.
Somehow, Irwin Schiffs concept of "winning" fails to meet my idea of the way to go.
In U.S. v Schiff, 85-1 USTC ¶9108 , 751 F2d 116, the second circuit court of appeals affirmed Mr. Schiff’s criminal tax evasion jury conviction. Schiff, the court noted, is the author of "How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes."
On appeal, Schiff, the self-proclaimed leading "untax expert," ditched his argument that the tax system is unconstitutional and contended that he believed, in good faith, he was not required to file tax returns. Implicit in this argument is the recognition that he had an obligation to file tax returns and pay taxes – a 180 degree reversal of what he preaches to the public!
The court, however, did not buy Schiff's post-conviction conversion. It easily distinguished between a good faith misunderstanding of the law and Schiff’s vehement and well-documented disagreement with the law. Those who disagree with the law must still obey it. The court stated the good faith defense as follows:
It is well established that the good faith defense encompasses misunderstanding of the law, not disagreement with the law. United States v. Kraeger, 711 F.2d 6, 7 (2d Cir. 1983). The distinction is necessary to the functioning of the tax system. Without it, any taxpayer could evade tax obligations simply by stubbornly refusing to admit error despite the receipt of any number of authoritative statements of the law. At some point, such stubbornness becomes unreasonable; the line is crossed between misunderstanding and disagreement and the taxpayer can no longer successfully assert a defense of good faith.
Undeterred by his stint in the slammer, Schiff went back to court. U.S. v Schiff, 89-2 USTC Para 9465, 876 F2d 272 (Sec. Circuit, 1989). This time, he argued that his criminal probation requirement that he file tax returns violated his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Once again, he lost. The court noted that his argument was a rehash of his basic thesis: he does not have to pay taxes. The court made it clear that Schiff was required to file returns and pay taxes on the income he earned under IRC Sec. 6001, 6151 and 6012. The court dismissed Schiff’s notion that the U.S. tax system is voluntary and no income tax is "legally required."
To the extent that income taxes are said to be "voluntary," however, they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS first telling each individual the amount due and then forcing payment of that amount. The payment of income taxes is not optional, [citations omitted] however, and the average citizen knows that the payment of income taxes is legally required.
Shrugging off these defeats, Schiff ventured into court once again. Schiff vs. U.S. 73 AFTR 2d Par 94-517 (U.S. Dist. Ct. 1989). This time in a civil case in which he was hit with civil fraud penalties, he claimed that the IRS could not assess taxes against him. The tax system is unconstitutional; and he sincerely believed that he was not required to pay tax. Predictably, he lost again on all counts. The court made the following findings and conclusions:
1. Schiff failed to file an accurate tax return, so his voluntary assessment was zero. Once the IRS filed a zero assessment tax return for the taxpayer, the IRS could then assess a deficiency (an additional amount of tax) against Mr. Schiff.
2. Schiff was given the right to contest the deficiency in Tax Court, which he failed to do.
3. The U.S. tax laws are constitutional. With respect to this argument, the court made the following succinct observation:
The authority given to Congress to lay and collect taxes, see U.S. Const. Art. Section 8, Cl 1, as modified by the 16th Amendment, allows the imposition of an income tax without limitation. The 16th Amendment removed the limitation on Congress’s authority to impose a direct tax only if proportioned among the States, stating the "Congress shall have the 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." Courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment. See, e.g. Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1, 17-19 (1916) [The Court upheld the validity of the 16th Amendment, finding that it eliminated the requirement that direct taxes, such as the income tax, on all income from whatever source derived, need no longer be apportioned.
4. Regarding the civil fraud penalty, the court found that Schiff paid no taxes and failed to properly file tax returns. In refuting his claim that he sincerely believed he did not have to pay taxes, the court found that Schiff was an intelligent person with a broad knowledge of tax law, inasmuch as he has written books on the subject and has appeared on television discussing the issue. The court made the following crucial distinction:
The court finds plaintiff's attempts to exculpate himself from the fraud penalty based on the sincerity of his belief that he need not pay income taxes to be without merit. While a failure to pay because of a "misunderstanding of law" may not sustain the imposition of the fraud penalty, "disagreement with the law" provides no defense United States v. Schiff, 801 F.2d 108, 112 (2d Cir. 1986). As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted, "[t]he distinction [between a misunderstanding and a disagreement] is necessary to the functioning of our tax system. Without it, any taxpayer could evade tax obligations simply by stubbornly refusing to admit error despite the receipt of any number of authoritative statements of the law." Id.
In a prior action involving plaintiff's liability for tax evasion and fraudulent underpayment of taxes, the Tax Court, after reviewing the evidence and considering plaintiff's arguments, concluded:
Petitioner is free to argue his theories to Congress, but he cannot disregard the laws passed by Congress and upheld by the courts, fail to perform an affirmative duty imposed on him by those laws, and then expect to avoid the consequences of his avowedly freely exercised disobedience.
Schiff, T.C. Memo. 1984-223.
The Irwin Schiff's are not doing conservatives any favor.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that state citizens are exempt from income tax.
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.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
A good article published in The New American for all conservatives to read and consider:
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
The reason the government hates Schiff so much and will stand the law, reason and common sense on their heads to nail him is because he has freed so many from the income tax. He let the cat out of the bag and they have never forgiven him for it.
The reason the government hates Schiff so much and will stand the law, reason and common sense on their heads to nail him is because he has freed so many from the income tax.
LOL, who has he freed, seeing he convinces others into legal jeopardy the income tax represents? He loses every case he is involved with.
You are aware are you not, one attribute of the income tax is that it places every person in legal jeopardy by requiring the performance of an affirmative act. Whether one files or not, pays or not they are under a continuous legal threat of audit, and general investigation.
Tax evasion and non-filing just serves to increase the power of government to act against the individual. All they need is to not receive that which is expected to open an investigation. Heck they don't even need that much, just the suspicion of error in a filing and life of that individual can be made quite miserable.
He let the cat out of the bag and they have never forgiven him for it.
What cat is that pray tell? All I see is a con-artist at work, telling marks what the would like to believe and hooking them in with it. Heck he go so far as to sell demonstrablely failed arguments in the from of his legal filings to his clients.
I note his help did zilch for the Brown's in their recent case in which Mr. Schiff went all out to explain his theories on why these folks are not subject to the income tax. Kinda looks like Iwin has a few problems when it gets down to actually winning a case at law.
Schiff: http://www.ischiff.com/taxcase.htm & http://www.paynoincometax.com/taxcase.htm
"The case now pending before the Supreme Court, Brown v. The United States, Docket No. 99-2066, if heard , will end the income tax. The case focuses on a tax that few Americans know exists: the Federal "wage tax." Since 1943, this tax has been collected (and disguised) by the Government as the withholding of income taxes "at the source." However, the taxes that get "withheld" from a worker's pay each week are not income taxes. They have nothing to do with income taxes or the 16th Amendment. They represent a "wage tax" imposed in Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code. Income taxes are imposed in Section 1. "
What Irwin Schiff does not say about withholding:
Witholding is not a tax at all:
BARAL v. UNITED STATES, 172 F. 3d 918; affirmed SCOTUS 98-1667 (Feb 22, 2000)
Thus his argument is worthless and misleading and does not relieve anyone of their liability for paying an income tax under Section 1.
Which is why his expert help lost the Brown's case for them.
Refer: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2066.htm
"When Robert and Elena Brown of Las Vegas filed their 1996 "zero" income tax return, they requested a refund of the $5,035 in "wage taxes" they had paid that year. When the Government failed to send them their refund check as
required by over 20 statutes, three constitutional provisions, and numerous Supreme Court decisions they sued the Government in Federal court in Las Vegas. They were entitled to the refund on at least two grounds. The
Government admitted that no income taxes for 1996 had been assessed against
them and no court had ever held that they owed income taxes for that year. In addition, they were entitled to a "credit" for the wage taxes they had paid against the income taxes they owed. Since (as explained above) they owed no income taxes, the "credit" had to take the form of a cash refund. "
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT A. BROWN; ELENA H. BROWN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket: 99-15308 Filed October 26, 1999
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Docket: CV-98-00825-PMP
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
MEMORANDUM <<1>>
Before: BROWNING, WALLACE and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Robert and Elena Brown appeal pro se the district court's summary judgment for the United States in the Browns' action seeking a refund of taxes paid for tax year 1996 on the ground the IRS had failed to make any assessment against them and they had no tax liability. These arguments are
frivolous. First, the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1988). Second, compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, is income subject to taxation. See United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981). The Browns are taxpayers within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code and are subject to federal tax laws and income tax. See id.
Third, there is no requirement that the IRS make a formal assessment of tax liability before payment is necessary. An assessment is merely a bookkeeping procedure that permits the government to bring its administrative apparatus to bear in collecting a tax. See Zeier v. United States, 80 F.3d 1360, 1354 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejecting similar argument in
estate tax context). Most taxes are collected voluntarily, without an assessment; an assessment serves as the basis on which the IRS takes action against those who do not voluntarily pay their taxes on time. See id.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED
APPENDIX D –
ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF
JANUARY 19, 1999
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ENTERED AND SERVED
JAN 21 1999
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
D.C. No CV No. CV-98-00825-PMP (RJJ)
ROBERT A. BROWN,
ELENA H. BROWN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER
This action was commenced on May 29, 1998, by the filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint to recover overpayment of federal income taxes for the year 1996 (#1).
On November 30,1998, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (#12). On December 14, 1998, Defendant United States filed a Response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#13-#15). On January 6, 1999, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#16).
The pleadings and Motions on file, and particularly the Form W-2’s submitted as exhibits to Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#15), unambiguously show that Plaintiffs Robert A. Brown and Elena H. Brown received the sums of $23,846.73 and $20,354.42, respectively, for the year 1996 and that a total of $5,035.50 was withheld for that year. Plaintiffs’ suit for refund is grounded in the claim that because no assessment had been made against them with regard to income taxes at the time they filed their income tax return, Form 1049 (sic), for the year 1996, they are entitled to a full refund of the entire amount of the taxes withheld. Plaintiffs are wrong.
The absence of a tax assessment by the Internal Revenue Service does not prove that a taxpayer owes no taxes. See 26 U.S.C. par. 6151 and Moran v. U.S., 63 F. 3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 1995). Indeed, the undisputed facts before the Court demonstrate that Plaintiffs cannot prove their claim of overpayment and entitlement to refund.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#12) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#13-#15) is granted and that Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant United States and against Plaintiffs Robert A. Brown and Elena H. Brown.
DATED: January 19, 1999
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
Appeal Issues raise in Appellants brief.
1. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with numerous statutes passed by Congress, prior rulings of this Court, and prior rulings of the Ninth Circuit and other circuit courts in holding that plaintiffs can owe income taxes even though:
a) No assessments for the funds at issue exist, and
b) No court has ever ruled that plaintiffs owed any income taxes for the year at issue?
2. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with the apportionment provisions of the Constitution and the holding of this Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust , 158 U.S. 601, and Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, 240 U.S. 1 in holding that petitioners were required to pay a direct tax on their wages (as imposed in Code Section 3402(a)(1)) despite the fact that the such a direct tax was not imposed on the basis of apportionment and despite the fact that such funds were required to be refunded to petitioners pursuant to the provisions of 26 U.S.C 31(a)(1)?
3. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with all of the taxing clauses of the Constitution and this Court's holdings in both Pollock, supra, and Brushaber, by permitting the United States to retain funds collected as a federal tax but which were not collected either on the basis of apportionment as provided for in Article 1, Sections 2 and 9, Clauses 3 and 4, nor on the basis of geographic uniformity as provided for in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution?
4. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with this Court's holding in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, supra, by claiming in its ruling that “The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens.”?
5. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution and decisions of this Court in holding that federal courts and the petitioners are not bound by the “legislative powers “ vested in Congress, but are only bound by such court decisions as the Ninth Circuit deems appropriate to select and cite?
6. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with 26 U.S.C. 61 and the holding of this Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, supra and Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 in holding that that “Compensation for labor services, paid in the form of wages or salary, is income subject to taxation.”
7. Whether citizens of the United States have a right “to have the Assistance of Counsel” of their own choosing as guaranteed to them by the 6th Amendment, or are they now restricted by being allowed to have for such assistance only such “officers of the court” as are permitted by this Court?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/99-2066.htm
| No. 99-2066 | Status: | DECIDED |
| Title: | Robert A. Brown, Petitioner | |
| v. | ||
| United States | ||
| Docketed: | Lower Ct: | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| June 23, 2000 | (99-15208) |
| ~~Date~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Jun 23 2000 | Petition for writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 23, 2000) |
| Jun 23 2000 | Appendix of petitioner filed. |
| Jun 29 2000 | Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed. |
| Jul 5 2000 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 25, 2000 |
| Oct 2 2000 | Petition DENIED. |
| ******************************************************** | |
"...Eight decades of amendments and accretions to the Code have produced a virtually impenetrable maze. The rules are unintelligible to most citizens - including those who hold advanced degrees and including many who specialize in tax law. The rules are equally mysterious to many government employees who are charged with administering and enforcing the law.
"It is also a known fact that the Internal Revenue Code is a very easily misunderstood area of law, even misunderstood by trained professionals. Judges and lawyers admittedly do not know the tax laws." (my emphasis)
None of what you post is an indictment of Mr. Schiff; it's an indictment of big government. Now we've come full circle.
Download, save and print off the letter by Ms. Olson of the IRS, folks.
Denial of cert implies no reflection on the merits of a case.
Denial of cert means the decision stands friend and the appellate ruling controls precident.
There was no substantive issue to be decided by the Supreme Court as that has been decided repeatedly throughout the history of the national income tax going back to the Civil War.
You will notice that the Brown's lost the appeals. They were required to pay the tax. As any who take the same path will be.
The courts are corrupt.
Sounds like sour grapes.
Sure, 200+ years of courts and all judges are corrupt, in face of clear Constitutional & statutory law in support of the income tax, and a judicial history exceeding 120years upholding the income tax as it regards occupations, employments, and professions.
All it would take is one Supreme Court ruling to kill the tax where it applies to earnings and wages. It is most interesting there has never has been a SC case to turn that over, and cases explicitly stating that earnings from employments and occupations are subject to the income tax. All inspite of the fact that overturning the income tax statutes would remove the requirement of Judges to pay that same tax, and remove any possibility of IRS of executive department retribution.
Your feable assertion simply holds no water.
Now how about backing your assertions up with something substantive rather than expressing your pie in the sky wish about it.
The simple fact is Congress has the power and authority to lay such taxes, Title 26 is the evidence of the public law enacted to lay and collect such taxes. The Constitution and debates of the founding fathers of this Constitutional government make it very clear that such a tax is indeed well within the Constitutional authorities granted Congress.
The only way to get rid of the Income tax is by legislating it away and ultimately prohibiting such by constitutional amendment. The Courts have made very clear since the very first income tax case:
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
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.