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

World Magazine ^ | August 30, 2003 | Joel Belz

[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.

[ggekko]

"The concept of stare decisis is a real PITA, isn't it? "

I would encourage you to read a couple of these cases if you have some time to spare. The Judges don't make stare decisis-based arguments when invalidating Schiff's legal theory. They simply eviscerate his legal theory and then move on with the rest of the case. It has the feeling of a Soviet-style show trial. The Judges in these cases should at least proffer a formal refutation of his legal theory (it wouldn't be that hard).

Schiff's legal theory is undoubtedly specious but I beleive in the broader sense that he is right. Opressive and arbitrary taxation is described in the Declaration of Independence of one of the "usurpations" of King George. The invasions of privacy sanctioned under our current tax system are particularly odious. It will only changed legislatively, however, not through the courts.

[ifreemantoo]

By the way what is the definition of "is".

With all that has been written in this forum you are not even a contender.

Please sit down.

According to "minion" AKA god I'm dumb and stupid. So that has already been established and affirmed by congress and the president.

What happens though when the "dumb" and "stupid" make god look dumb and stupid? Somebody else wants to take god's place. Is it your turn god?

---

‘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."

---

[ifreemantoo]

By the way what is the definition of "is".

With all that has been written in this forum you are not even a contender.

Please sit down.

According to "minion" AKA god I'm dumb and stupid. So that has already been established and affirmed by congress and the president.

What happens though when the "dumb" and "stupid" make god look dumb and stupid? Somebody else wants to take god's place. Is it your turn god?

---

‘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."

---

[Poohbah]

The Judges don't make stare decisis-based arguments when invalidating Schiff's legal theory.

Actually, they do--they refer to the existing case law.

They simply eviscerate his legal theory and then move on with the rest of the case.

And they eviscerate it by citing the cases where those arguments had already failed.

[ifreemantoo]

Sorry about the double post.

[VRWC_minion]

Poobah Before the 16th Amendment, "direct taxes" had to be apportioned; now, an "income tax" doesn't have to be apportioned, whether it's direct or indirect. IfreeNow where in the USSC descions I listed or anywhere else does that say what you just wrote?

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FRANK K. BOWERS, Collector of Internal Revenue v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO.

Docket: 173 Filed May 3, 1926

< Snip> The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes' on income, "from whatever source derived" without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. Art. 1, section 2, cl. 3, section 9, cl. 4; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived." Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 17. "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. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335; Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519. After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207. And that definition has been adhered to and applied repeatedly. See, e.g., Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, supra, 518; Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527, 535; United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169; Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U.S. 247, 252, 253; United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 194; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 167; Edwards v. Cuba Railroad, 268 U.S. 628, 633. In determining what constitutes income substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight. Eisner v. Macomber, supra, 206.

[MACVSOG68]

Funny that not a single decision in these 90 years has found that taxing income from salaries and wages is unconstitutional. You'd think someone might have thought of that one. Seems that pesky old 16th has withstood the test of time. And lets be serious and not try parsing meanings. Of course, a tax on wages is a direct tax. But since it's also income, that old 16th permits taxation without apportionment. But then maybe you're right. Where do I file for my refunds for these past years?

[MACVSOG68]

Schiff's politcal critque of the income tax has a great deal of merit, in my view. The move toward a more equitable tax system will have to be accomplished politcally. No Federally appointed judge will ever have the "stones" to overturn the IRS code unilaterally.

I for one, fully support a national retail sales tax as a replacement for the income tax laws currently on the books. There is much to critique about the federal income tax.

By the way, federal judges rule against the IRS continually. They have no qualms about it, nor would they have any fear of being fired. I mean, really, look at the 9th Ciruit in SF. I have no doubts, that they would love to make some kind of political statement such as finding the income tax unconstitutional, especially with Republicans in office.

[ifreemantoo]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FRANK K. BOWERS, Collector of Internal Revenue v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO.

Docket: 173 Filed May 3, 1926

< Snip> The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes' on income, "from whatever source derived" without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. Art. 1, section 2, cl. 3, section 9, cl. 4; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not,(those that are called "not" are excise taxes) and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived." Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 17. "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. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335; Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519. After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207. And that definition has been adhered to and applied repeatedly. See, e.g., Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, supra, 518; Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527, 535; United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169; Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U.S. 247, 252, 253; United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 194; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 167; Edwards v. Cuba Railroad, 268 U.S. 628, 633. In determining what constitutes income substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight. Eisner v. Macomber, supra, 206.

---

There is no classification of tax in-between as you just confirmed further for me. This clearly says income is an excise tax. Not subject to apportionment, but subject to uniformity. Thank you very much. Do you have any others I can add to my list.

---

‘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."

---

[VRWC_minion]

Selective reading is bad for your eyes,

Did you skip right over this ?

Congress already had power to tax all incomes

[VRWC_minion]

You are confused and you are making a huge logical error, not uncommon for TPer's. Because something isn't considered a direct tax doesn't make it an excise tax. Its still an income tax only that a tax on incomes is not considered a direct tax.

Let me try an example. In order for someone to swallow what Shiff is selling they need to be a complete idiot. If finally they decide to reject what he taught, they are still complete idiots.

So, like the income tax. The income tax has NEVER been considered by the courts not to be a direct tax. Its still an income tax. Just like a TPer' is still an idiot.

[VRWC_minion]

You have misrepresented my position and you fail to use scripture in proper context.

When you are let free from the grasp that Satan has on you thru Shiff then you will be able to be free again. Until then you are a slave to self deceit.

[ifreemantoo]

Funny that not a single decision in these 90 years has found that taxing income from salaries and wages is unconstitutional.

It took a few years for Pollock to come around. A lie no matter how long it is portrayed or believed is still a lie.

"taxing income from salaries and wages is unconstitutional".

Let me clarify one point here. Taxing salaries and wages is constitutional when levied as an excise tax through uniformity. For the millionth time it is about the application and administration of this law.

 Seems that pesky old 16th has withstood the test of time.

I hope the 16th stays around forever. The understanding of it has been severely challenged in this forum.

And lets be serious and not try parsing meanings.

As you know I'm very serious. The parsing of words was and is not my doing and not even your doing.

Of course, a tax on wages is a direct tax.

Yes, again that is how it is levied as a direct tax.  

But since it's also income, that old 16th permits taxation without apportionment.

Yes it is income. No it is not supported anywhere in the law I quoted.

Where do I file for my refunds for these past years?

How about WWW.PAYNOINCOMETAX.COM.  If you want a book that shows what the gubbermint has said and put in print about taxes the "Federal Mafia" is very good even if you don't agree with him.  There is some awful embarrassing gubbermint documents that have been reproduced. I think I'd ban the book if I were the government. It's to revealing.  If you get this book and still believe it's garbage keep it anyway. If the gubbermint allows the lifted ban to continue, well you can just sell that $38.00 book for up to $300.00 on ebay for those of you who are enterprising.

If you want historical content then the "Great Income Tax Hoax" is very good but a hard read.

But then maybe you're right.

If one thing I fault Schiff for he is eternally optimistic.  I don't think anyone should jump and decide to thumb there nose at the gubbermint without understanding what they are doing or why.  It may be a matter of timing. It may be that some shouldn't even try.

I do believe though that if you pay the bill you should know why.  If you accept that you must go along, at least you knew there was a choice.

"Freedom is the ability to keep what you produce." Irwin Schiff.- "The Great Income Tax Hoax"

---

‘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."

---

[ggekko]

"I have no doubts, that they would love to make some kind of political statement such as finding the income tax unconstitutional, especially with Republicans in office. "

The Ninth "circus" is the exception that proves the rule. Personally I would love to see the entire income tax code at least temporarily invalidated; the level of panic in DC would be palpable.

I too support a National Sales Tax in lieu of the income tax but it would have to be designed very carefully.

[ifreemantoo]

Congress already had power to tax all incomes

This is beyond redundant and sanity.  Yes, that is extremely clear. Just as long as it is by apportionment or uniformity. The uniformity and apportionment provisions still exist. You can tax anything as long as it is by apportionment or uniformity. If I say this 10 more times will it make it any more clear as to my position.

You said the income tax was a direct tax. I didn't argue with you. I just asked why isn't it apportioned. You said because the SC said so. Well yes the USSC in every decision claims it's an excise tax so that is why it is not apportioned as is grossly clear by those decisions.  

Now I'm "dumb" and "stupid".  So what does that make you as you continue the way you are?

---

‘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."

---

[VRWC_minion]

In your dreams. There is no such requirement. where is the requirment that an income tax be uniform and aportioned ?

Show me where the SC say the income tax is an excise tax ? Hint: Saying the income tax is an excise tax is the most idiotic thing you have stated so far.

[ifreemantoo]

My apologies minion I didn't realize that you are not even a teenager. Let me help guide you to a more appropriate web site. http://disney.go.com This forum is for adults I think. You can' t play here anymore.

---

‘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."

---

[ifreemantoo]

Will someone else please help him out. I don't beat up on children.

[Lurking Libertarian]

This clearly says income is an excise tax. Not subject to apportionment, but subject to uniformity. Thank you very much. Do you have any others I can add to my list.

If this were true, it would not invalidate the income tax; "uniformity" doesn't preclude varying rates based on income. All the Constitution says is that excise taxes "shall be uniform throughout the United States." (Art. I, sec. 8). This only means that the tax rates can't vary from state to state, and they don't.

You must have missed this language from the Brushaber case you like to cite: "So far as these numerous and minute, not to say in many respects hypercritical, contentions are based upon an assumed violation of the uniformity clause, their want of legal merit is at once apparent, since it is settled that that clause exacts only a geographical uniformity, and there is not a semblance of ground in any of the propositions for assuming that a violation of such uniformity is complained of." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (emphasis added).

[Lurking Libertarian]

The court cases dealing with the "direct tax" issue are collected and discussed here>