Posted on 09/01/2003 4:10:28 PM PDT by TIElniff
Not sure I follow the point. Every law has an enforcement capability.
I will assume you really don't believe that the term "income from whatever source derived" was meant to include salaries and wages. Assuming so, please refer to 26CFR, Sec 1.61-2 which goes into much greater detail as to the specifics of "income", including salaries and wages.
Yeah, & it looks like they've gone beyond "capability" with their fairly detailed post on the subject
I'll ask you again. Where is the term wages and salaries in Sec. 61 about sources of income? If it's not there and the example you gave on Sec. 61 demonstrates that case, then Mrs. Kuglin (sp) certainly was justified in her actions since wages and saleries are not even listed as a source of income.
And for those that don't know it, as people pointed out that the mission of the IRS is to achieve the highest level of voluntary compliance, the IRS changed its mission to "showing the public the tax laws that apply" or sumping like that in order to obscure the voluntary nature of the income tax. They didn't even show Mrs. Kuglin the laws that apply to her so they failed with their revised mission to her. This further justified her action(s) in this regard!
I just gave you the cite....26CFR, Sec 1.61-2 specifically identifies wages and salaries as income!!! Even if Kuglin was too slow to follow the US Code definition of "income from whatever source derived" and specically identifies "compensation for services", she could have gone to any IRS office and asked for the laws and guidelines, or to explain Title 26 US Code. But we both know she was not that stupid. She was playing a game with them, is damn lucky she had a stupid jury, and will eventually pay her taxes, interest and penalties.
Even if you can't find the CFR's, I need to know why wages and salaries aren't compensation for services, or part of "income from whatever source derived".
Can't argue that one. I for one believe the federal government has far too many police powers. This is one of my ten top reasons for killing the income tax and going to a sales tax. but given that, as long as the income tax is the law of the land, I believe that the law should be adhered to.
Until the 16th Amendment was ratified on Feb. 3, 1913 (with Connecticut, Rhode Island and Utah never ratifying it), the primary form of taxation was through duties, imposts and excises. Excises are an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity. Imposts (and some excises) are any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. A duty is primarily a tax on imports. The 16th Amendment introduced an income tax on top of the Fed's power to levy excises, imposts, and duties — none of the latter forms of taxation were repealed.
You are correct that the Left will never permit eliminating the income tax, but neither will anyone else in the political class. Some Republicans have talked a good game on this issue, but I notice that when they have the power to at least raise it as a public issue and attempt to pass legislation, they haven't done squat.
By the way, the 16th Amendment was introduced and passed by Congress in 1909 during the first term of President William Howard Taft. Both houses of Congress at the time were controlled by Republicans.
So much for your garbage about wages and salaries being in the Internal Revenue Code and applying to Mrs. Kuglin. And even if some regulation mentions wages and salaries (not mentioned by USC 26 itself), it obviously is a benign regulation. That's part of the reason the IRS would not answer Mrs. Kuglin's simple request(s).
As for your question about "fees and compensation for services," a corporation can receive fees and compensation for services; a wage worker such as Mrs. Kuglin does not!
Good post. I'm not sure it's hopeless. There are roadblocks which have to be overcome, but it can happen. The politicians must understand that a sales tax will not take away any power they have to spend in those areas they deem important. One issue that needs to be addressed is the use of the income tax for purposes other than revenue raising. It is also used both to influence social behavior and to accomplish other goals such as energy efficiency and urban rehabilitation.
Once the issues are catalogued, they must be proactively addressed, not blown off by the pro-sales tax groups. There are more and more people considering the alternatives.
My problem with that is that it is a "go have a bake sale and sig a petition" kind of dissent. Lame, easily ignored dissent. In contrast, making the tax code unenforcable would get it changed, for sure.
See Code section 1 and Regulation 1. If you refuse to read the first section you shouldn't do your own taxes.
B. Contention: Payment of tax is voluntary.
In a similar vein, some argue that they are not required to pay federal taxes because the payment of federal taxes is voluntary. Proponents of this position argue that our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment.
The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.) Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151 , which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated "when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required 'shall' pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty which he chose to ignore." United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8 th Cir. 1983).
Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Bressler, 772 F.2d 287, 291 (7 th Cir. 1985) - The court upheld Bressler's conviction for tax evasion, noting, "[he] has refused to file income tax returns and pay the amounts due not because he misunderstands the law, but because he disagrees with it . . . . [O]ne who refuses to file income tax returns and pay the tax owing is subject to prosecution, even though the tax protester believes the laws requiring the filing of income tax returns and the payment of income tax are unconstitutional."Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238 (1991) - The court rejected Schiff's arguments as meritless and upheld imposition of the civil fraud penalty, stating "[t]he frivolous nature of this appeal is perhaps best illustrated by our conclusion that Schiff is precisely the sort of taxpayer upon whom a fraud penalty for failure to pay income taxes should be imposed."
Packard v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 2d 143, 145 (D. Conn. 1998) - The court dismissed Packard's refund suit for recovery of penalties for failure to pay income tax and failure to pay estimated taxes where the taxpayer contested the obligation to pay taxes on religious grounds, noting that "the ability of the Government to function could be impaired if persons could refuse to pay taxes because they disagreed with the Government's use of tax revenues."
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8 th Cir. 1993) - The court stated that "[taxpayers'] claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance" and imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,500 "for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protestor arguments."
Good luck. We probably both want the same thing, but will likely take different roads.
What part of ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE don't you understand ?
From the super secret public web site at the IRS
. The Voluntary Nature of the Federal Income Tax System
A. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.
Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court's opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."
The Law: The word "voluntary," as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011(a) , 6012(a) , et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10 th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, "although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS' efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper."
Relevant Case Law:
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) - The U.S. Supreme Court stated, "[i]n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil] sanctions."United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10 th Cir. 1986) - The court upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise "that the tax system is somehow 'voluntary' . . . is incorrect."
United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8 th Cir. 1983) - The court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary "was rejected in United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8 th Cir. 1983), wherein the court described appellant's argument as "an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit."
Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) - The court rejected the claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a "tax protester type" argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty for failure to file a return.
Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468, 471 (1999) - The court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty and rejected his argument "that the tax system is voluntary so that he cannot be forced to comply" as "frivolous."
More than you'll ever know you Collectivist wannabe -- more than you'll ever know. And Sec 1 does not require people to file income tax returns -- it isn't even listed in the privacy act notice (not that you understand what that means) -- if it did they would've have answered Mrs. Kuglin. As bad as the IRS is they're more honest and knowledgeable than you and Mac (whatever). At least they don't personally tell lies in writing as you two do. Or to be charitable, neither one of you has an idea of what you're talking about.
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.