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 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.