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.

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.

LOL Ya know, now that you mention it, might be fun to watch...

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

There are currently two bills in Congress on a NRST. Also two web sites supporting such a move. I'm thinking about jumping into the frey with at least one of these groups. Haven't made up my mind yet until I'm sure of how the downsides are covered. I've listed some of the benefits on this thread, but there are several others as well. My sense is that a transitional approach would be more acceptable than a complete switch at one time.

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.

Wouldn't doubt that about embarrassing government documents. Plenty around. But I'm sure I've seen just about all of the various issues on this thread alone. So I'll pass. But good luck.

Yes I'm familiar with Dan Evans and quatloos. It's the IRSS dis-information site. They will tell you what the IRSS wants you to know.

I believe Dan and Irwin have in a public forum even recently debated about "income tax". If I'm not correct Dan was reduced to frustration and said that Irwin was "worse than a child molester". Now I wonder what USSC decision he got that from? Now if minion calls me the same, I'll know who his father is.

Previously this offer was made to Dan Evans by Irwin Schiff. I wonder if he ever excepted it?

I challenge you to reply and accept this offer via e-mail or in any other manner:

1) Identify the Code Section the requires Americans "to pay" income taxes in the same manner as, for example, Code Sections 4401, 5005, and 5703 require people to pay wagering, alcohol, and tobacco taxes. If you can produce such a Code Section, I will pay you $25, 000. If you fail to produce such a statute, or if the statute you produce does not "require" any such payment, you owe me $10,000. (Note: Since income is defined as an excise tax this is very fair.)

2) Produce the Code Section that makes Americans "liable" for income taxes, in the same manner as, for example, Code Sections 4374, 4401(c), 5061(a), and 5703(b) make them "liable" for insurance, wagering, liquor, and tobacco taxes. Do that, and I will pay you $25,000. However, if you fail to produce any such statute, or if the Code Section you produce, does not make them "liable," for income taxes, you owe me $10,000.(Note: Since income is defined as an excise tax this is very fair.)

3) Produce the Code Section that requires Americans to keep books and records for income tax purposes, in the same manner, for example, as Code Sections 4403, 5114, and 5741, require Americans to keep books and records for wagering, alcohol and tobacco taxes. Do that and I will pay you $25,000. However if you fail to identify any such statute, or if the statute you produce does not require Americans to keep books and records for income tax purposes, your owe me $10,000 (Note: Since income is defined as an excise tax this is very fair.)

4)Produce the Code Section that defines the meaning of "income" or specifically states that "wages" "salary" and or "compensation for personal services" are taxable as income –in the manner that these items were specifically identified in the 1939 Code as constituting "income," and I will pay you $25,000. However if you can not produce any such statute, or if the statute you identify as defining "income" does not do so, or if the statute you identify does not provide that "wages," "salary," or "compensation for personal service" are taxable as income, then you owe me $10,000.

‘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 what bet did he welsh on. You like quoting "court cases" until the one that claims there was no offer. That is a little selective. Of course you have all sides of the story.

Unlike the 5 or 6 USSC decisions that states that "income tax" is an excise tax and all you can say is "I may be right". That's a little bit funny as that I'm not the USSC. I didn't say it I just pasted it that's all. As I'm sure you're well aware of the 4th vs. the 8th & 9th courts have differing opinions as to the I-TAX being an excise or direct tax. I thought the decision was finally settled. What the hell is going on here? If you read just a little on DAN EVANS dis-information site you'd find that he knows this discrepancy. If it's not that important then why make opinions about it. Now it appears you like to have it both ways your court decisions as long as they match your belief.

As for me it is plainly ridiculous that what appears to be an excise tax is levied "directly" as MAC and minion both write and call it direct. All those court decisions claiming it to be an excise tax is just one big lie. But, as the USSC said it is, so that's what it is. I live with it but, I don't like it one bit. The blatant obvious absurdity of a direct tax being an excise tax and those that pretend it's ok is simply beyond reasonable understanding.

What's even further ridiculous is that I can argue that it is a direct tax (certainly better than minion can). I shouldn't be able to. Why because our entire taxes are based on the two short simple quotes below. It is not that complicated.

From our Constitution

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

In about 75 words this is what our taxes are all about.

To get over such a simple concept you need courts to ignore, destroy and side step around this very simple insurance of your freedom called apportionment. This simple concept was designed to keep government limited, small and as a servant government which is what Libertarians and Conservative supposedly wants. It is hardly that now. The only real effective way to control the Federal dog is to stop feeding it.

You now have a mountain of paper in court decisions and laws to get around apportioned taxes. If you could look over the mountain you might see that your freedom has been stolen. What appears to be security and comfort that has been offered and accepted will soon reveal its chains of slavery.

Here is a new one for you. It's called
USSC-WeatherToday.gov according to this web site they have judged the weather in the middle east coast to be sunny and 85 today. "That large swirling mass of clouds with a center in it is just a glitch in our system please disregard. If you have travel plans to the east coast no probelmo. So decreed." USSC.

Now let's see can you tell me what does "shall" mean in Code Section 6012. Does it mean "may" or does it mean "required"?

I made one small but important corrrection in this post.

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. Yes again as an excise tax.

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

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"

And section 861b determines how to determine taxable income within the US because some items of gross income in section 61 are not taxable by the US government because of the US Constitution.Did the IRS tell you that?I don't think so because they are decievers!Go to www.861.info for a real honest EXPOSE of the US income tax system "fraud".Watch a flash presentation of what lawyers,former IRS agents,a federal prosecutor,cpa's and many more have to say.Another 19 year vet just left the IRS because he knows they are a fraud and many IRS are getting ready to QUIT over the evidence.The IRS has Grossly changed the meaning of taxable income and there is no definition of income in the IRS manuals nor title 26 folks.Even the supreme ordered Congree Not to define income.If Congress can't define income,they have no right to your money because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it's really a head tax.

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.