Skip to comments.
Code of Silence: Time for the IRS to Answer The Question!
World Magazine ^
| August 30, 2003
| Joel Belz
Posted on 09/01/2003 4:10:28 PM PDT by TIElniff
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 421-429 next last
Why not?
1
posted on
09/01/2003 4:10:29 PM PDT
by
TIElniff
To: TIElniff
At the same time, it's altogether right for citizens in a free society to call on Caesar to tell us the truth about our obligations, and to do so in a civil manner.If the judge was simply saying, "Make your law clear, sir, and maybe the lady will obey," I think he had a pretty good point.
Bump and Bump-Bump.
FMCDH
2
posted on
09/01/2003 4:35:23 PM PDT
by
nothingnew
(The pendulum is swinging and the Rats are in the pit!)
To: TIElniff
Why not? I don't think the lady won as as result of her contention that she did not owe taxes, but because the jury was somehow convinced that her letter to the IRS years ago placed the obligation of answering it on the IRS.
Title 26 of the US Code identifies who must report and pay, how income is defined, and how much to pay in taxes. That is further defined in the IRS regualtions. Assuming the US Code is legitimately the law of the land, then I fail to see the issue other than the silly verdict rendered somehow indicating she did not act out of anything but legitimate confusion. As for the W-4 with 99 exemptions, she clearly filed a false official statement knowing she did not have 99 exemptions. I can't conceivably understand why that did not put her in the slammer, never mind no tax filings.
As others have indicated, she will pay her taxes together with interest and penalties, and I certainly believe they are owed if she had income.
Occasionally a frivolous argument gets through, but considering all of the tax litigations each year, not often.
3
posted on
09/01/2003 4:41:38 PM PDT
by
MACVSOG68
To: MACVSOG68
"Title 26 of the US Code identifies who must report and pay, how income is defined, and how much to pay in taxes. "
Have you actually read it, or are you just parroting what you have heard? I'm just curious...
4
posted on
09/01/2003 5:03:53 PM PDT
by
Henrietta
To: Henrietta
Title 26 is chock full of stuff about how much tax to pay under various conditions, but there is no obvious statement that "every U.S. resident who earns an income..." etc. must pay income tax.
This is extremely curious. It SEEMS like a simple thing to express. And there is that XVIth amendment, so it isn't like the tax code is dependent on some perversion of the Commerce clause. Curious!
5
posted on
09/01/2003 5:20:11 PM PDT
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: Henrietta
Have you actually read it, or are you just parroting what you have heard? I'm just curious...Parroting??? The code is not a difficult read. For example, Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1 would seem to most to make it quite clear that an individual person is liable for taxes. Subchapter B would seem to most to make it quite clear that income from whatever source, specifically including salaries, wages and other income is taxable. Have I read every subtitle in its entirety? No! I'm not particularly interested in trust income, enterprise zones, or Title 11 for for example.
In addition to the code, of course, there are the IRS regulations, rulings, decisions, both administrative and judicial, and a myriad of instructional information. All in all it encompasses several thousand pages, and changes are effected both by Congress and the IRS annually. No one said it was easy...just required.
And who do you parrot?
6
posted on
09/01/2003 5:24:25 PM PDT
by
MACVSOG68
To: TIElniff
Code Sec. 1 (of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended also known as Title 26 of the United States Code) imposes a tax on the taxable income of every individual and gives the rate schedule applicable to each filing status. Code Sec. 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus allowable deductions. Code Sec. 61 defines gross income as all income except for exclusions listed in the Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law.
7
posted on
09/01/2003 5:28:10 PM PDT
by
TheCPA
(Co-author of Tax Stategies for the Self-Employed)
To: MACVSOG68
Protester Irwin Schiff finds himself in federal court in Nevada this week, fighting a possible six-month jail sentence for continuing to sell his book, The Federal Mafia.Now that you have the Code squared away, maybe the nexst step would be to read Mr. Schiff's book. If you're curious, that is.
8
posted on
09/01/2003 5:35:40 PM PDT
by
nygoose
To: nygoose
Now that you have the Code squared away, maybe the nexst step would be to read Mr. Schiff's book. If you're curious, that is.Save me the price. He will only use it tax free...while he's in jail. Just tell me what part of what I argued in earlier posts is not true. I believe that in the past he has argued that the law does not specifically cover individuals, but only corporations. Others have argued that. Not sure what other loopholes he thinks he has found, but I doubt most judges....or juries for that matter, would be impressed.
People win tax cases every year. I won one once. But, trust me, it had nothing to do with whether I was legally obligated to pay taxes, only whether certain damages were taxable.
9
posted on
09/01/2003 5:48:10 PM PDT
by
MACVSOG68
To: TheCPA
Code Sec. 1 (of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended also known as Title 26 of the United States Code) imposes a tax on the taxable income of every individual and gives the rate schedule applicable to each filing status. Code Sec. 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus allowable deductions. Code Sec. 61 defines gross income as all income except for exclusions listed in the Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law. The question is who is liable for the tax -- not this tax imposed nonsense. Also, the term income is not defined as one can't use the word to define a word as every eighth grader knows. The appeals case U.S. vs Ballard notes that the general term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
The reason the IRS will not answer Mrs. Kuglin's questions is that there is no law requiring the filing of income tax returns or the paying of those taxes.
Since the non response of the IRS proves Mrs. Kuglin correct, will you and the other Collectivist kindly stop mis informing people on this issue?
10
posted on
09/01/2003 5:52:14 PM PDT
by
UbIwerks
To: UbIwerks
As regards this garbage that income is defined in the Internal Revenue Code, here is what U.S. v Ballard, 535 F 2nd 499 says "The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code....."
11
posted on
09/01/2003 6:03:04 PM PDT
by
UbIwerks
To: TIElniff
12
posted on
09/01/2003 6:29:42 PM PDT
by
steplock
(www.FOCUS.GOHOTSPRINGS.com)
To: MACVSOG68; eno_
Eno's post #5 sums it up pretty well...
Having actually read the tax code myself (as opposed to parroting) I can say that it's not very clear just who is responsible for paying what.
And you'd think that the IRS would be happy to clarify that for folks. The fact that they don't is just a little bit interesting...
So cool yer jets, MACVAOG68. If you keep hyperventilating, we'll have to resucitate you.
To: UbIwerks
And as every third-day law student can tell you, a code is not a law. It is a mutual agreement negotiable by either party. Laws refer to codes and vis-a-versa, but actual law must be written as such.
14
posted on
09/01/2003 6:49:45 PM PDT
by
whereasandsoforth
(tagged for migratory purposes only)
To: BartMan1
ping
15
posted on
09/01/2003 6:51:48 PM PDT
by
IncPen
To: Henrietta
I suspect the answer has something to do with lack of due process.
If it became the burden of the government to prove income, the tax code might not be enforcable in practical terms.
No wild conspiracy theories needed - just the usual weasel-nature of government when it finds certain rights are inconvenient.
16
posted on
09/01/2003 6:52:22 PM PDT
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: whereasandsoforth
And as every third-day law student can tell you, a code is not a law. It is a mutual agreement negotiable by either party. Laws refer to codes and vis-a-versa, but actual law must be written as such. Title 18 is law; however I read that the Internal Revenue Code (so-called Title 26) was never enacted into positive law.
17
posted on
09/01/2003 6:54:14 PM PDT
by
UbIwerks
To: UbIwerks
I don't argue that. I was pointing out that we don't haul people into court for breaking the code.
18
posted on
09/01/2003 6:58:59 PM PDT
by
whereasandsoforth
(tagged for migratory purposes only)
To: whereasandsoforth
I don't argue that. I was pointing out that we don't haul people into court for breaking the code. Btw... I don't think I was disagreeing with you. I was merely adding to your most interesting statement :)
19
posted on
09/01/2003 7:09:10 PM PDT
by
UbIwerks
To: Henrietta
Having actually read the tax code myself (as opposed to parroting) I can say that it's not very clear just who is responsible for paying what.Well, there's that old saying about the ten percent. These scams, some of which you seem to have fallen for have been around for a lot of years. The IRS seems quite comfortable with the plethora of Supreme Court, Appeals Court, district and tax court decisions that have ruled each of these scams out. I haven't heard such word parsing since Clinton's days in the oval office.
You may not be able to figure out that you are an "individual", that you have "wages or salaries" (or income from whatever other source), or how much to pay in taxes. But those things are in the code!
But, hey. Be my guest, claim $0 and wait. Just hope that you too have a jury that can't read or write, or is mad they have to pay taxes.
Do you really believe that since 1913, if such easy loopholes existed, Congress wouldn't have fixed them?
By the way, the only hyperventilating I see on this thread is coming from the crowd that thinks they have just gotton a tax windfall. That would make me hyperventilate!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 421-429 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson