Posted on 09/01/2003 4:10:28 PM PDT by TIElniff
JOEL BELZ
Code of silence
Why won't the IRS answer a basic question about tax law? By Joel Belz
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.