Code of Silence: Time for the IRS to Answer The Question!

Further regarding this topic. I wrote about why according to our constitution why I believe it won't work but here is the real reason why it won't.

Congress won't allow it. Why, because he who has the money has control and power. Can you imagine how reality will kick in when you make a purchase of a $100 and you have to kick in $7.00 for state sales tax and an additional $15 to $39 dollars extra for the federal tax? Wow that $100 is really $150.

This extra $15 to $39 is not taken out secretly out of you pay check, it now comes right out of your hand before your very eyes. I believe all of sudden people will be very frugal as to their spending and want accountability for where they see the money go.

Congress really doesn't want accountability and it doesn't have to in its present form as that almost everyone willingly allows his or her money to be taken by a "withholding agent". You know that person as your employer.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

here are some interesting cases..note that there are no Tax Court cases here as TC is not a court of law..but merely an administrative review board..it is in the executive branch, not the judicial branch..as you will notice alot of these are pre 1954 code..could these decisions be the reason why wages and salaries and the word personal (personal services rendered)was removed from the code when the 1954 code was enacted?
another question..if the withholding agent is your employer and he is responsible for deducting withholding, submitting monies to irs..keeping records, etc..does he get paid for doing this..if not, would that not be involuntary servitude?

Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739 (1937): "Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

Oliver v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 859 (1955): "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Helvering v Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575 (1943): "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145, (1959) never overruled: "... the government can collect the tax from a district court suitor by exercising it's power of distraint... 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" [Footnote 43] If the government is forced to use these remedies(distraint) on a large scale, it will affect adversely the taxpayers willingness to perform under our VOLUNTARY assessment system.

Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920): US Supreme court, never overruled "After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " (A tax on salary)

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110,113 (1916): "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

McCutchin v Commissioner of IRS, 159 F2d: "The 16th Amendment does not authorize laying of an income tax upon one person for the income derived solely from another."[wages]

Blatt Co. v U.S., 305 U.S. 267, 59 S.Ct. 186 (1938): "Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress."

Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas, Nevada."Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."

Commissioner of IRS v Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S. Ct. 1190 (1960):
"The exclusion of property acquired by gift from gross income under the federal income tax laws was made in the first income tax statute 4 passed under the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment, and has been a feature of the income tax statutes ever since. The meaning of the term "gift" as applied to particular transfers has always been a matter of contention. 5 Specific and illuminating legislative history on the point does not appear to exist. Analogies and inferences drawn from other revenue provisions, such as the estate and gift taxes, are dubious. See Lockard v. Commissioner, 166 F.2d 409. The meaning of the statutory term has been shaped largely by the decisional law."

Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 21 (1978): "Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two."

Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. vs Hofferbert, 102 F Supp 902: "Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income. THE TAX IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE UPON "GROSS RECEIPTS" ..."

Conner v US, 303 F Supp 1187 Federal District Court, Houston, never overruled. "..whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the time of Eisner V Macomber, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the IRS code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income, CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME, NOT COMPENSATION"!!!

Bowers vs Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174 (1926): "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed ...."

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916): "The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such..."

Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925): "An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax...The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right."

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920), US Supreme court, never overruled: "...the definition of 'income' approved by this court is: The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets."

Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 Pa. 239 (1946): "Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit"

Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2nd 643: "Income is realized gain."

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883). One of the most eloquent opinions ever delivered by the Court..
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."

Pollack v. Farmers Loan, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895): The Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 was a 2% tax on PROFITS OF CORPORATIONS. The Supreme Court had, in POLLOCK v. FARMERS LOAN , in 1894, ruled as UNCONSTITUTIONAL the EXACT SAME KIND OF TAX MOST AMERICANS ARE NOW PAYING! [A direct tax without apportionment.] This decision has NEVER been overturned! Both BEFORE and AFTER the sixteenth amendment passed (?), THE COURTS SAID INCOME WAS CORPORATE PROFIT! The Separation of powers doctrine says only CONGRESS can collect a tax!

thnx
steve

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time
when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead
of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

Why don't Americans just shut down the IRS?

Who exactly are you people?

Great Post.

For all that has been said here, it is still about following the laws of the "house" and not the laws on the books.

Now you can use a 16-lb. sledgehammer to nail in a tack. If you are in a hurry and very careful you probably won't hurt anything including yourself. Now if you break your fingers and punch a large hole in the wall would you say that that the sledgehammer wasn't a hammer or the tack wasn't a tack?

No, what you would say is it's the wrong application. The sledgehammer is still a hammer and the tack is still a tack. Not just a very good combination to use.

Neither is the application and administration of our present constitutional tax laws. It is that extreme and that ridiculous. Just use them the way the law is written.

I thought I was supposed to follow the laws on the books not the house rules.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

40 to 50% of your time and money go to the gubermint. That doesn't leave a lot of time even pay attention considering everyone has bust lives.

What people do about taxes is mostly through tradition and fear. I pose this question to everyday people I meet and I rarely get the correct answer. What are the two ways does the constitution tells us how we can be taxed?

If you don't know then you are like the stranded driver in the middle of nowhere paying $200 for a $30 bypass hose and $200 dollars for the tow from a half block away. If you don't know then you are at the mercy of those who say they know or pretend to know. Either way it is a lie. Either way you pay for what you don't owe at least according to the laws and not the "house rules".

The only real way to stop it for now is to obey the laws and pay only what you owe and if you owe zero just pay zero. If enough people will do that, you will get their attention.

Now the gubermint should be as a favorite pet. My obedient dog when it develops an attitude I just stand between her and her food when she is hungry. She knows who is boss or she isn’t fed.

Likewise, the only effect way to control the Federal dog is to stand in front of what it eats. That is of course your money it feeds on. This is how I do it. I follow the law and this prevents them from feeding.

The first thing though is to ask the questions and get educated on the basics.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

I obviously left some words out in this response. Half the power went out in my house while I was making up my my reply and I was distracted.
____________________________________________________________
40 to 50% of your time and money go to the gubermint. That doesn't leave a lot of time to even pay attention considering everyone has busy lives.

What people do about taxes is mostly through tradition and fear. I pose this question to everyday people I meet and I rarely get the correct answer. What are the two ways does the constitution tells us how we can be taxed?

If you don't know then you are like the stranded driver in the middle of nowhere paying $200 for a $30 bypass hose and $200 dollars for the tow from a half block away. If you don't know then you are at the mercy of those who say they know or pretend to know. Either way it is a lie. Either way you pay for what you don't owe at least according to the "house rules" and not the laws.

The only real way to stop it for now is to obey the laws and pay only what you owe and if you owe zero just pay zero. If enough people will do that, you will get their attention.

Now the gubermint should be as a favorite pet. My obedient dog when it develops an attitude I just stand between her and her food when she is hungry. She knows who is boss or she isn’t fed.

Likewise, the only effective way to control the Federal dog is to stand in front of what it eats. That is of course your money it feeds on. This is how I do it. I follow the law and this prevents them from feeding.

The first thing though is to ask the questions and get educated on the basics.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

Further regarding this topic. I wrote about why according to our constitution why I believe it won't work but here is the real reason why it won't.

Anything as dramatic as a shift from the income tax to a sales (or value added) tax will not be readily accepted. There are some downsides, of course. But before anyone writes it off, he should at least consider the benefits of such a system.

It puts a natural cap on the size of government as the politicians won't be able to continue raising the rates without facing the wrath of the voters. (credits to Jimrob for this one)
The IRS will not have to be a monitor of other law enforcement agencies such as the ATF or DEA,
No longer will the primary source of revenue be W-2 filers, whereby the entire underground economy gets off scott free, by some indicators amounting to as must as $1 trillion.
Tens of thousands of pages of regulations, ruling and court decisions relating to various esoteric definitions of income can hit the shredder,
Instead of 125 million taxpayers, the IRS (or equivalent) can concentrate on only a fraction of businesses,
The tax will be truly voluntary, that is, if you don't want to buy the item, don't,
Politicians cannot use the tax for non-revenue purposes, that is, to influence behavior or to punish, but simply to raise revenues.
An entire federal agency does not have to continue to learn each and every economic trend to stay abrest of the various tax evasion and avoidance schemes,
Even the drug dealers have to buy their Cadillacs...so you don't have to worry about their income. Let DEA worry about that.
When investment decisions are made either by individuals or businesses, that decision can be based solely on economic considerations, not to be influenced by what kinds of tax benefits, loopholes or liabilities may exist.

Most European countries utilize value added taxes very substantially as a supplement to the income taxes they collect. The US still has the lowest total taxes of almost every first world country.

You are correct in expressing doubts. But without a substitute, the tax protesters dreams of the end of the income tax system is simply that...a dream.

i agree with you in that the national sales tax method should be passed, primarily because it will eliminate the irs, which is step 1 of gettin this country back to the pre1913 prosperity that we once had..if for no other reason this bill should be passed..

steve

Since the general term: "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code,
(U.S. v. Ballard, [1976] 535 F2d 400) and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled
the Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter,
since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it
derives it's power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that
power can be lawfully exercised (Eisner v. Macomber, [1920] 252 U.S. 1889).
Since the Rules contained in the IRS Manual, even if codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, do not have the force and effect of law (U.S. v. Horne,
[C.A. Me. 1983] 714 F2d 206) and the power to promulgate regulations does not
include the power to broaden or narrow the meaning of statutory provisions
beyond what Congress intended (Abbot, Procter & Paine v. U.S., [1965] 344 F2d
333, 170 Cl.Ct. 408) and regulations cannot do what Congress itself is
without power to do; they must conform to the Constitution (C.I.R. v. Van
Vorst, [C.C.A. 1932] 59 F2d 677).
Since the ultimate Appellate Court is the U.S. Supreme Court, we must look to
that Court for a definite answer on the question of conformance and
affirmation that Wages are not classified as income which can be taxed.
The Court has recognized that:
"... It becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not
`income' ..."
Eisner v. Macomber,
[1920] 252 U.S. 189
and determined that:
"... `income' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to
include everything that comes in, the true function of the words `gains' and
`profits' is to limit the meaning of the word `income'"
(So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847);
(U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 1917);
(247 U.S. 30 [1918])
The Court determined that:
"... the definition of income approved by the Court is:
`The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided
it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of
capital assets.'"
Eisner, supra.

i agree with you in that the national sales tax method should be passed, primarily because it will eliminate the irs, which is step 1 of gettin this country back to the pre1913 prosperity that we once had..if for no other reason this bill should be passed..

Probably won't totally get rid of the IRS, but will drastically reduce it in size and direct its focus on business revenues rather than individual income. For those interested in more information look here:

http://www.fairtax.org/

It looks real pretty. Initially, as I said it might do all the things you claim. However, as soon as someone asks for a deduction that will require paperwork that requires information about you, it will start all over again.

You have also added more reasons as to why congress won't legislate a National Sales Tax. Because as I pointed out they have it all now so why should they give it up?

To get to whatever method you want, indeed if followed to the letter of your law and barring any court decision that will give a different meaning then as you outlined, yours is not a half bad plan.

The record for the gubermint telling the truth and following it's own laws and promises is like Charlie Brown's continued attempts at kicking the ball while Lucy is holding it. "Today is the day Lucy won't pull up the ball. I'm going to kick it finally today. Ouch!” It just won't happen. History continues to tell it that way.

Though to get where you want to go you will have to have enough pissed off people stand in front of the Federal dog and stop feeding it and get its' attention. That is really the only way. Tell Fido to stop whimpering everything will be all right. Give Fido a reason to obey.

That's where the so-called "tax protestors" help out. We are the one's who have caused much change. The word "voluntary" has been removed from the IRS Mission Statement since Irwin Schiff has made such a big stink out of it. According to the gubermint he has caused a loss of 56 million dollars in tax revenue. That is getting someone's attention isn't it? It is the so-called "tax-protestors" who continues to say the sky really is blue no matter what the courts say. We can look out the window to the outside and see for ourselves.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

You wrote:

You are correct in expressing doubts. But without a substitute, the tax protesters dreams of the end of the income tax system is simply that...a dream.
____________________________________________________________
What was it that was said by those that challanged and rejected abusive authority?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn,

that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

(I broke up this into bite sized bits for emphasis.)

These are the words of those that dreamed of a different government then we have today. I want that dream back.
____________________________________________________________

Well, I DO believe they are, if not actual heroes, at the very least, great role models! The less money FedGov steals, the less damage it can do to what's left of our Constitution and our very FREEDOM....

I wanted to get back to this quote of yours.

"Given all that, it's hard to understand how the cultists are those who believe in complying with the rule of law (whether they like that law or not)."

Did you mean to say whether the cultist KNOW the law or not? Can the vast majority of 1040 cultist filers tell what law they are complying with?

Again I ask this question. Who is the cultist?

Me, in all that I have presented on this topic or

those that sign a 1040 and can't even quote section 1 as you believe; tell you about direct or indirect; or the 16th amendment?

Which one?
____________________________________________________________

‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

Well, I DO believe they are, if not actual heroes, at the very least, great role models! The less money FedGov steals, the less damage it can do to what's left of our Constitution and our very FREEDOM....

Then you must not be judgmental about other "role models". Mumia Abu Jamal is a role model for many black activists who want FREEDOM. The environmental activists are role models to many on the left. Paul Hill was and is a role model for some on the fringe of the anti-abortion debate. I could go on and on.

Some do not like the income tax, and instead of working for change, they simply don't pay any, claiming that they are working in the interests of freedom. I disagree. Check out: www.fairtax.org/

These are the words of those that dreamed of a different government then we have today. I want that dream back.

These words were backed up with specific charges against George III. Which of them pertains to the issue at hand? Also, don't forget that the very men who approved of those words by signing that document also put down Daniel Shays rebellion and instituted the alien and sedition act. The leaders of our country soon found that the shoe was on the other foot.

Again I ask this question. Who is the cultist?

A cultist, without regard to judgment about such cult, is simply one who maintains an obsessive devotion to a principle or ideal when regarded as a fad.

Clearly the 100 million + taxpayers who simply follow what they believe the law requires and think little more of it would not fall into the definition of a cultist. One whose life revolves around continual studies of every aspect of a law in attempts to find a way not to comply could fall into that category.

From your attitude, I would suspect that:

a) you work for FedGov in some capacity; perhaps even the IRS;

b) you probably were a headquarters weenie in Saigon and not an operator out in the mud;

c) you LIKE lots of gubmint spending and programs; and

d) you don't mind having folks' pockets picked to fund whatever is near and dear to YOUR heart.

Someone who evades/avoids paying the taxman is merely keeping what he or she has earned. It had ZERO to do with killing cops, abortion doctors or anyone else, nor does it have anything to do with using the power of FedGov to ride roughshod over someone else's property rights. You pick some mighty poor examples, but then a fedgov REMF would be likely to do that, wouldn't he?

"...if 200 years ago men revolted on the principle that 'Taxation without representation is tyranny,' then today men may rise in righteous wrath because taxation with representation but beyond human comprehension is even worse."

Judge Wilkey, "American United", Inc. v Walters, 477 F2d 1169 (CCA-D.C., 1973)

In the 25 years since I first began studying our Tax Code of 1954, as "amended" et al, our tax code and its regs etc. have increased by more than an order of magnitude so shelf space. An 'order of magnitude' is '10 times' for you recent government school veterans.

"The first nine pages of the Internal Revenue Coide defines "income"; the remaining 1,100 pages spin the web of exemptions and preferences. The average taxpayer rearely gets beyond the nine pages."</B

Senator Warren Magnuson, Congressional Record (1966) 1,100 pages? We wish. That baseline page count is a lesson all by itself.

It is even worse.

There is no common sense way that the ratification of our XVI Amendment can be argued "logically" because two deciding states withdrew their ratification votes before the states' voting was completed.

Everyone should re-evaluate the Constitutionality of our entire income tax system. We cannot be held guilty unless proven innocent under our "voluntary" but extorting tax code.

Fairness in citizenship responsibility dictates that everyone should pay annual federal non-payroll taxes as their first basic step of their financial responsibility to fellow citizens of our USA footing the bill for our common defense. A $100 per head tax, every man, woman, AND child including those in prison and illegals running loose, should be adequate as a start.

We have a politically schemed, oppressively enforced, and literally incomprehensively patched together tax code with regs et al. as well as unreliable "legal" systems which punish the "taxpayer" who does not have superb tax lawyers as planners and defenders AND luck.

Ordinary people are abused and extorted too often. It is past time to kill it.