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

I STILL HAVE DOUBTS WHETHER THE NAME OF VERNICE B. Kuglin, who lives in Memphis, Tenn., will someday leap off the pages of America's history books along with those of Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, and Rosa Parks. I do know that Ms. Kuglin must be a woman of some personal courage.

Ms. Kuglin, a 58-year-old pilot for FedEx, made news a few days ago when a federal court jury found her not guilty on six charges of tax evasion and willful failure to file federal tax returns. During her testimony, Ms. Kuglin said that over the last eight years she had sent numerous letters to the Internal Revenue Service requesting that the agency tell her specifically which law in the federal code requires her to pay individual taxes.

To this day, she says, she has not received an answer to that simple question. It's not, mind you, that she has received an answer she considers unsatisfactory or unclear. It's that she hasn't received an answer of any kind.

The reason I still have doubts about Ms. Kuglin's durability as a true American heroine has to do with the methods she used to make her point. (Among other things, she claimed 99 exemptions on her W-4 form.) But after watching her case?and those of other tax protesters?for the last several months, I can't help thinking they have something of an argument. And I think the IRS continues to be extraordinarily dim-headed in its response on at least two important fronts.

First, if indeed the obligation of every U.S. citizen to pay federal taxes is legitimately codified, then it shouldn't be all that difficult for the IRS to demonstrate for a layman like Ms. Kuglin just exactly how those laws apply. For some years, some pretty smart people have put together a pretty persuasive argument that the tax laws are a sham, that they have been cobbled together in an extraconstitutional manner allowing Uncle Sam to collect huge sums of money without a clear basis in law.

If these folks are wrong, more and more taxpayers are asking, why should it be so hard for the IRS and the federal government to prove the case? Why, when a minister like Gene Chapman camps out for a "fast to the death" on the steps of an IRS building, demanding an answer to the question, "Where is my tax liability in the law?"?why doesn't the IRS just provide a simple and transparent answer?

Indeed, I have actually been skeptical in the other direction. I have regularly dismissed the so-called tax-protest movement as a group of crackpots who want so badly to prove the federal government wrong that they concoct harebrained theories that can't possibly hold water. But the longer the feds and the IRS stonewall, the less skeptical I get.

Second, why must the federal government be so heavy-handed in its response to a few of the more outspoken tax protesters? 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. The government contends that he is engaged in commercial enterprise to encourage citizens to break the law?which means that every time Mr. Schiff does anything to sell another book, he finds himself in contempt of court.

Protester Larken Rose, meanwhile, says he isn't even trying to sell anything; without advocating any particular action, he just tells people through lectures and literature what he thinks the law really says?and for that, he claims, he has had his office and home ransacked by IRS agents.

WORLD and its board and management are not tax protesters. We take seriously Christ's command to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." And we understand that in a secular society, that may often mean we end up paying taxes even for causes that we find repugnant to our consciences.

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.

In Memphis a couple of weeks ago, after the jury that had exonerated Ms. Kuglin had been dismissed, the U.S. attorney who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the case asked the presiding judge to order the defendant to file her forms, pay her taxes, and "obey the law." The judge responded discreetly by noting that such a response was outside his duties.

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.

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.

I notice something about you revolutionary types. If someone gives an argument you disagree with, you can only attack them, because of course they must have some collectivist motive.

As for your silly who are you determinations:

a. I do not work for the Federal government. I have never worked for the IRS,
b. I was with the 5th Special Forces, MACVSOG, FOB4 in Danang. I operated out of Laos. And you, sir?
There is much government spending I do not like. I fight those measures I don't like through my elected representatives and organizations that do so. I do not disobey or ignore laws by wrapping myself in old Thomas Paine pronouncements.
d. See response to c. above. One of the organizations I support is one that is chartered to eliminate the income tax as a source of revenue for the federal government.

CHECK IT OUT HERE!
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?
Problem is, when you take the revolutionary path as opposed to the elected representative path, you have placed yourself in those same groups who also believe they are right. By the way, your assertions about 'property rights' sounds like you forgot the 16th amendment. I think that's also part of our constitution...

I was with a Marine helo squadron out of Phu Bai, and I can imagine that we pulled your chestnuts out of the fire on occasion...

And what do you do if the elected representative path fails to work? DO you CONTINUE to be a good sheeple to be fleeced at the will of the politicians or do you start actively resisting? What you seem to advocate is passive compliance, which is tantamount to total complicity in the big gubmint schemes of the RepubliCrat party, no matter WHICH wing of it holds power. THAT is utterly unacceptable to me.

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

I wouldn't put a lot of money on the USSC ever agreeing with that thesis. 38 States were certified to have ratified the amendment. The courts have agreed.

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.

Whether we as taxpayers like it or not, it is constitutional. Whether it is moral or just, I and most in America do accept it as constitutional. But many of us would like to change the income tax to something a lot less onerous and more fairly administered. That's why we support a sales tax in place of the income tax.

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.

And what of someone else who believes that that is too much? Should we let them off the hook for the $100? Would they be classified as a patriot?

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.

I agree. Which is why I support a sales tax.

You wrote:

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.
___________________________________________________________
You admit they******believe******therefore they don't know. You supported my statement as to definition 2 as found in the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary.
___________________________________________________________

"2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents."

1) Certainly a system.

2) Must be religious because it is based on beliefs absent any knowledge of the law and certainly is a ritual for the same reasons. They do it but can't tell you why as per the law.

3) Its adherents are the "Federal Mafia" who have taken a simple concept of income tax and distorted it beyond rational understanding.

I believe that fits with in the definition. You know most people celebrate Santa Claus, Halloween, and the Easter Bunny, however no mature and rational person believes in them.
____________________________________________________________
‘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 was with a Marine helo squadron out of Phu Bai, and I can imagine that we pulled your chestnuts out of the fire on occasion...

LOL. You might just have me there...

And what do you do if the elected representative path fails to work? DO you CONTINUE to be a good sheeple to be fleeced at the will of the politicians or do you start actively resisting? What you seem to advocate is passive compliance, which is tantamount to total complicity in the big gubmint schemes of the RepubliCrat party, no matter WHICH wing of it holds power. THAT is utterly unacceptable to me.

I'll separate the issues: First, the constitutionality or legality of the income tax is one issue. I believe it is lawful, if completely unfair. I deal with that through the FAIR tax proposals. The second, which is the size of government is something I do agree with you on. To that end I can only work for elected officials that will support less, rather than more government. Voting for some fringe party only insures that Democrats are elected next time. And as much as I strenuously disagreed with the farm subsidy bill signed by Bush, and disagree with the Departments of Education, Labor and HHS, movement away from such institutions will take a lot of time, pressure on elected officials, and a Republican Senate that is filibuster proof.

As for 'active resistance', remember, that once started, it is difficult to control, and you no longer have any moral highground over any other group that feels their cause is worthy of active resistance.

I believe that fits with in the definition. You know most people celebrate Santa Claus, Halloween, and the Easter Bunny, however no mature and rational person believes in them.

You put this into the same category as the income tax??? C'mon, you must have better arguments than that!

You admit they******believe******therefore they don't know. You supported my statement as to definition 2 as found in the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary.

I would like to think this is not central to your arguments...but then...

As for those who 'believe', a lot of people believe in God, atoms, the size of the universe, the despicability of communism, good and evil, right and wrong, wind, the meaning of the 2d Amendment, etc, etc. I guess anyone in this category would be a cultist, in your viewpoint.

Let's get back on to the main point of the thread, and away from esoteric definitions.

Mac,

I'm obviously not as smart as you are. You should perhaps start looking though for some other alternative sources of information.

Some links might get you up to date.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/HistoricalDocs/StatementBeliefs2Up26pgs.PDF

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update07-25-03.htm

I find it hard to believe that you missed Bob Schulze of the We The People organization. He submitted a list of grievances (redress of grievances. Now where did that come from?) to the gubermint. I believe it was submitted in the USA Today.

In fact the gubermint promised to show and tell instead they hid and covered their mouths. If their are answers as the Federal Mafia claimed why not just show up and tell as was promised?

I'm sure you just didn't remember.

By the way just answer the questions.
____________________________________________________________
‘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.”

Every iota of wealth that we earn is ours and only ours. It is not owed to the government. How vigourously one fights to keep it does indicate a degree of courage and character. That we bow to the power and extortion of "Caesar" does not prove our depravity, only simple pragmatism. To agree that they have a right to our wealth is certainly not a recommendation of moral courage.

I assume therefore, that every iota of wealth you have earned has been done so without one single reliance on any government rule, regulation or law. If your business caught fire, you would not rely on the fire department; if you were robbed, you would not call the police; of course, you would not drive to work on roads paid for from tax dollars; And of course, if the nazis or communists had wanted to take over your business, you would not call upon the federal government to protect that, now would you?

The price of a free, but civilized society is a certain payment to Caesar. I believe even Christ agreed to that. The only questions are how much and by what method. And yes, once lawfully determined, a tax can be owed.

You wrote:

"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."

Now this is hilarious. I'll change one word.

One whose life revolves around continual studies of every aspect of a law in attempts to find a way**** to**** comply could fall into that category.

I'm just one person in this topic. How are the studies coming?

Which is one of the reasons why almost everyone here believes regardless of what you say you work for the gubermint. Remember now we are of the minority opinion here.
Or is this just community service you are performing?

Does this make you one of the cultists adherents?

I'm obviously not as smart as you are. You should perhaps start looking though for some other alternative sources of information.

Freeman, sometimes I think if it wasn't for your sarcasm, you would be completely devoid of any personality. But back to the point. I assume you believe absolutely every point on that "fact sheet" in your link. Outside of the one on dividing Americans and a couple on due process, the arguments are simply hashed over tax protester arguments that have been ruled on by courts previously. It is a shotgun approach. Maybe something will stick! We've been over most of them including the 16th Amendment, liability, income, etc. Certainly most of the arguments on due process relate to methods most of us would disapprove of rather than the constitutionality or legality of the tax itself. On those issues you get no argument out of me.

But the last one was hilarious. He contends that the courts don't like tax protesters. That's why this whole thread is really a joke. No matter how much economic, constitutional or legal logic is used to refute some of the tax protester claims, no matter if the courts rule against them, there will simply be this overarching conspiracy theory that everyone's against them, even though they are right.

No, Freeman, I'm not smarter than you, I just live in a different world than you.

This is too easy.

Now it's ok to steal your money to do good. The problem is that they now steal it to do evil as posted earlier, Jesse Jackson's love child, leather parties in San Franscisco, pornograpy art, billions lost and unaccounted for and so on.

Either it is done by clear law, which you as well as the gubermint refuse to answer or point out and then hide when you say you will tell, or it is stealing.
____________________________________________________________
‘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.”

Now it's ok to steal your money to do good. The problem is that they now steal it to do evil as posted earlier, Jesse Jackson's love child, leather parties in San Franscisco, pornograpy art, billions lost and unaccounted for and so on.

That's pretty good, Freeman. As long as the government spends money on anything I don't personally approve of, then I have a right not to pay taxes. Please don't try to morally justify your points about the illegality of taxes. Besides, you missed the point entirely. I was responding to a comment that no taxes could ever be owed. I would pose the same questions to you. Do you believe there is ever any justification for taxes? Do you believe there is any cost to a free and civilized society? Do you ever depend on governmental services of any kind?

Why didn't the Internal Revenue Shitheads tell her what the law was and point out to her in black and white what her obligations were.

Later in this thread I did link to a letter provided by the IRS to answer some of the questions in this thread. And again, for the unpteenth time on this thread, a jury found her not guilty of willful tax evasion because of her letter to the IRS. The verdict did not impact any liabilities she might have for back taxes, interest and penalties.

You wrote:

"Certainly most of the arguments on due process relate to methods most of us would disapprove of rather than the constitutionality or legality of the tax itself."
__________________________________________________________
Your frustration is showing. Sorry about my personality it's kind of tough when you have to live with it everyday glad you can relate. But, back to the game.

Here we go again. You exhort those who, from your point of belief, follow the law. You say that I should follow that same law. Then you tip your hat to the outright criminal methods used by our gubermint to collect as you say those "lawful" taxes.

By the way that "method" was described in the "Power to Destroy" co-authored by former Senator William Roth Jr. Most of those people had "methods" problems too. Most of them didn't owe even by your standards. Now you can also add those abusive 'methods' previously listed. That is just like gubermint one standard for the people another for the gubermint.

If the gubermint breaks the law you call it "methods". "Methods" is what I call the denial of "due process". In your understanding though due process is not "constitutional" is it?

The only thing silly in this thread is watching all the ducking you are doing to avoid answering the questions.
____________________________________________________________
‘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.”

A duh maybe sales, gasoline, long distance, tires, cell phone taxex and so on. As to whether I do or don't like these taxes I'm still persuaded that they are legal and lawful. T

I thought we were talking about income taxes. So you feel comfortable that the gubermint can enforce a tax where there is no law?

It's also ok for Jesse Jackson to take your tax payments too in the form of government non-profit money and illegally use it for his own personal use. You can't find him to talk about it. I doubt that he will ever go to jail for it.

Again, you say you agree with the house rules and not the laws.

You are either very frustrated or ducking the questions again.
____________________________________________________________
‘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.”

The only thing silly in this thread is watching all the ducking you are doing to avoid answering the questions.

I've given answers to a lot of questions. You don't necessarily agree with them. You had a couple a day or so ago, but no matter what economic, accounting or legal basis I might apply to any of them, you are not going to accept any of them.

And, as you know, I would love to get rid of the IRS as we currently know it, partly because of what you point out in this post.

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

You see this is the topic. The gubermint here is not answering that question. They are just ducking, side-stepping, evading and pausing for a break to go to the bathroom, but they cannot or will not answer the question for the millionth time.
____________________________________________________________
‘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.”

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.