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

World Magazine ^ | August 30, 2003 | Joel Belz

[Henrietta]

You seem to be making a lot of false assumptions about what I do or don't do in regard to paying my taxes, and assume that I have fallen for some sort of scam.

In reality, I'm a tax professional who is licensed to practice law in several states, and merely have my own opinions about the clarity of the tax code.

You can stop hyperventilating now.

[Tymesup]

"Do you really believe that since 1913, if such easy loopholes existed, Congress wouldn't have fixed them?"

I gave a talk in 1989 on something called Current Liability, mentioned in Code Section 412. Congress said that the IRS should define the term. 14 years later, IRS has not done so.

[Kay Soze]

Bump

[eno_]

Vast parts of the federal government rest on a perversion of the commerce clause.

Huge fines are paid to, and vast amounts of tax money spent on, agencies that are, from a plain reading of the Constitution, illegal. In fact, before FDR stacked the court, such things were routinely ruled illegal and widely assumed to be anti-Constitutional for the federal government to do. Since the language of the Constitution has not changed, they certainly could become illegal in pratice again.

So it is not "tinfoil" to think that tax collections might rest on similarly flimsy footings.

And then there is the uncomfortable issue that, if a federal agency get declared Constitutionaly out of bounds, would the government have to disgorge all the fees, fines, and siezures associated with that agency.

You don't have to think the Bilderbergs or Illuminati secretly operate a New World Order to think the government doesn't want some issues examined too closely.

[nygoose]

Just tell me what part of what I argued in earlier posts is not true.

My point is not that what you say is untrue. I believe that if the Feds wanted to do something illegal, they would at least make it look legal. However, in order to disprove Mr. Schiff's arguments, we must at least know what they are.

[TIElniff]

Do you really believe that since 1913, if such easy loopholes existed, Congress wouldn't have fixed them?

Do you really believe that, if the question were as easy to answer as you think it is, the IRS would not just answer them, simply, directly, in writing, and on the record? So, why haven't they?

[MACVSOG68]

You can stop hyperventilating now.

You seem to have this fascination with hyperventilation. For some one who claims to be a tax professional, you simply attack me, rather than respond to what I said. And if you practice law in several states, you are no doubt familiar with the court decisions that respond to most of these scams. Have a nice day.

[MACVSOG68]

Do you really believe that, if the question were as easy to answer as you think it is, the IRS would not just answer them, simply, directly, in writing, and on the record? So, why haven't they?

If the question is "Why do I have to pay taxes?", I don't have a question there. I responded to that earlier. As I see it, the Constitution authorizes the income tax, Congress established the law and further authorized IRS to establish rules and procedures for impementation of the law. I still fail to see or understand the basic question.

[TIElniff]

. . . Congress established the law and further authorized IRS to establish rules and procedures for impementation of the law. I still fail to see or understand the basic question.

I think the question is: where precisely did Congress "establish the law" and where precisely did the IRS "establish rules and procedures for the implementation of the law," particularly those laws establishing a liability for a tax on taxable income.

If that's so easy, why not do it--in public and on the record?

[MACVSOG68]

I think the question is: where precisely did Congress "establish the law" and where precisely did the IRS "establish rules and procedures for the implementation of the law," particularly those laws establishing a liability for a tax on taxable income.

Title 26 of the US Code, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, Section 1 states in part..."there is hereby imposed on the taxable income....", and goes on to deliniate each class of taxpayer, and the amount of tax. Other Parts of the Code define income and taxable income. The Internal Revenue Code, IRS rulings, decisions,as well as various court decisions make up the rules and procedures. I'm not aware of any successful court challenges to the basic liability issue.

In short, at least for me, I read the code to say that individuals (that's me) must pay a defined amount of tax on income (defined as wages and salaries and from whatever other source). But from reading this thread, I must be missing something.

[TIElniff]

Other Parts of the Code define income and taxable income. The Internal Revenue Code, IRS rulings, decisions,as well as various court decisions make up the rules and procedures.

Two questions: 1. Where, precisely, in those "other parts," etc., and what do they say? What those parts say is part of the issue here.

2. If you can do it (i.e., cite these precise parts of the Code, etc.), why can't (or why won't) the IRS do it (in public and on the record, of course)?

[MACVSOG68]

Two questions: 1. Where, precisely, in those "other parts," etc., and what do they say? What those parts say is part of the issue here. 2. If you can do it (i.e., cite these precise parts of the Code, etc.), why can't (or why won't) the IRS do it (in public and on the record, of course)?

Subchapter B, Part 1, Sec 61 says: (a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

Additionally, it further defines AGI and Taxable Income.

As to why the IRS doesn't answer specific questions like the one (supposedly) written by the woman in question, I have no idea. The IRS has a procedure for filing for a ruling, in which they must respond. Their site has a lot of responses on it to these types of questions, however.

This has been a strange thread. I have been accused of being a collectivist, a parrot, and hyperventilated. Yet, I still have not read a question that I have not given an answer to. I don't enjoy paying taxes any more than anyone else. But to blindly follow some crank that tells me the payment of taxes is voluntary and not required, or that it is unconstitutional, or that individuals aren't covered seems strange for otherwise educated people.

I don't like the income tax. A national sales tax approach has much more to offer, and , for a number of reasons is superior to the income tax. So, no, I am not a collectivist, just a believer that tax evaders are not heroes.

[AlBondigas]

Lots 'o info here

[MACVSOG68]

Thanks. good site.

[UbIwerks]

Subchapter B, Part 1, Sec 61 says: (a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

The words wages and salaries are not in this example you gave so why should I believe that the income tax is a tax derived from these sources or even on these sources?

[Wolfstar]

Do you really believe that, if the question were as easy to answer as you think it is, the IRS would not just answer them...

I believe the IRS does exactly what it pleases. I belive it doesn't answer simple questions due both to arrogance and bureaucratic inertia. They make absolutely NOTHING simple or easy for us shlub taxpayers because they don't have to.

There was a time when I genuinely believed in the Republican Party's claims to be for the hardworking taxpayer, for trimming government bureaucracy and waste, for cutting back the IRS' power, for simplifying the tax code, etc., etc. But the gravy train on which our political class depends runs straight through the halls of Congress, and there isn't a politician, Republican or Democrat, who will genuinely deal with the incredible burden Federal income taxes and the IRS have become. They won't curb the IRS because the IRS rakes in the dough that goes straight into the pockets of the political class and helps keep them in power.

[D Rider]

What I find extremely curious, is that the agency in responsible charge for understanding all of this cannot answer the simple question of thier basic mandate. And if they can't, and no one here can definatively produce it... it begs the question "Does it even exist?" This is extremely curious.

Then, I ask myself "who wants it?"

Government (general)
IRS employees
Tax Attorneys
CPA's
Special Interest Parasites
Government Funded Institutions
...just for starters

[american spirit]

Exactly right and neither are ordinances and regulations, especially on a municipal as well as county level. In fact, most of the codes, rules, regs, etc. are nothing more than revenue producing devices for various gov't. entities of all shapes and sizes.

[AlBondigas]

Wanna know what the Guv's prepared for ?

[MACVSOG68]

...there isn't a politician, Republican or Democrat, who will genuinely deal with the incredible burden Federal income taxes and the IRS have become.

Can't disagree with that. But that's not what this thread is about. I fully support getting rid of the federal income tax, and replacing it with a sales tax. There are several excellent reasons for it. Unfortunately, though, the left will never permit it.