Posted on 09/01/2003 4:10:28 PM PDT by TIElniff
A website? That's not good enough, Bolshevik. Everyone knows that one doesn't have to tell the truth on the internet. It's like talking over the telephone lines.
Assuming he gets such simple things wrong, how much faith can we have in their interpretations ?
Ahhh, not so fast. Here it is from the Code of Federal Regulations:
"PART 1--INCOME TAXES--Table of Contents
Sec. 1.61-2 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items.
(a) In general. (1) Wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits, commissions on insurance premiums, tips, bonuses (including Christmas bonuses), termination or severance pay, rewards, jury fees, marriage fees and other contributions received by a clergyman for services, pay of persons in the military or naval forces of the United States, retired pay of employees, pensions, and retirement allowances are income to the recipients unless excluded by law. Several special rules apply to members of the Armed Forces, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Public Health Service of the United States; see paragraph (b) of this section."
All references to wages, salaries, tips and compensation for personal services were purged from the Code starting in 1954. What entity fits all the above categories? A corporation, of course. Since income has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a corporate profit, this section deftly encompasses corporations but not individuals.
Also, most people don't know to look to the "Definitions" paragraphs under each title or subtitle. That is where Congress defines the terms it uses in the statute.
As we all know, lawyers employ what are called "words of art". They can say "All individuals must pay the tax" without revealing what their definition of an "individual" is in that context. An "individual" or "person" could be a corporation, trust, partnership, many things besides a flesh-and-blood human being exercising his right to work for the provision of himself and his family and to keep a roof over their heads.
You have the answers they gave to Mrs. Kuglin? What did the correspondence look like?
Why is it so hard for some people (especially tax protestor dupes) to read simple english ? Are they really this dense in real life ?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?
It's been a real bad time for you IRS sycophants. Those defeats you keep on getting. There was Lloyd Long a couple of years ago, but, recently, there was Whitey Harrel, Donald Fecay, and, now, Mrs. Kuglin.
No wonder you people are foaming at the mouth and illegally banning Irwin Schiff's book and trying to throw him in jail.
Irwin Schiff has won and you guys are panicking (sneer).
Given your extensive knowledge of collectivists and Bolsheviks, I'm surprised at your lack of knowledge of the tax system. While the basic law is contained in Title 26 of the US Code, the IRS has ample regulatory authority which for tax payers has the effect of law. Such are the Internal Revenue Code, 26CFR, Treasury Regulations, Treasury rulings, IRS rulings and decisions, and thousands of court decisions. If you had a half way open mind, the many posts you have read on this thread would have at least prompted you to try civility rather than crass name calling. I assume that's your way of telling those of us you disagree with that you really don't have an argument....but you want one.
But hey! Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is and refuse to pay any taxes. I really don't give a $hit. As for your hero Kuglin, I put her in the same category as that other famous tax evader...Big Al. To believe is that "Income from whatever source derived" doesn't include salaries and wages is akin to that other famous saying....Well, that depends on what the meaning of sex is..."
From: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome
"Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income." United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990).
"In our view, petitioner's wages are taxable as gross income..." Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1986), aff'g 82 T.C. 766 (1984);
"Wages are taxable income." Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 746 F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984); Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986).
"Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional." Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986), citing United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984); Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1984);
"Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant's entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable." United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984), (emphasis in original; convictions for criminal failures to file affirmed).
"[W]e have [repeatedly] held that wages are within the definition of income under the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject to taxation. Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505 (1985)." United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993).
"Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on income, and under the Tax Code, wages are income." Grimes v. Commissioner, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986).
"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable." United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
"Irrefutably, wages earned in compensation for services are "income" pursuant to the federal tax laws." Boubel v. United States, 86 AFTR2d ¸2000-5123, No. 1:99-cv-380 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Tenn. 6/22/2000).
"[I]f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: 'WAGES ARE INCOME.' ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous...."" Hill v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 118, 120-22 (M.D. Tenn. 1984), (emphasis in original), (quoting United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984)).
"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (5) wages are not income...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
See also, Wilson v. United States, 412 F.2d 694, 695 (1st Cir. 1969); Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984); Commissioner v. Mendel, 351 F.2d 580, 582 (4th Cir. 1965); Simmons v. United States, 308 F.2d (4th Cir. 1962); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Burton, 737 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1984); Capps v. Eggers, 782 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1986); Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Woodall, 255 F.2d 370, 372 (10th Cir. 1958), cert. den. 358 U.S. 824 (1958); Simanonok v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 743, 744 (11th Cir. 1984); Ledford v. United States, 2002 TNT 153-6, NO. 02-5027 (Fed. Cir. 8/6/2002).
There are a few courts that would respectfully disagree with you.
Someone around 1954 realized that the income tax before that was not collected pursuant to the Supreme Court decisions on the matter, so the code was re written then removing the mandatory language.
And as for Mac's cases, why is there not a Supreme Court case among them?
The complexity of the income tax is protection for the scam. Or, actually, was protection for the scam since freedom fighters such as Mrs. Kuglin, Donald Fecay, and Whitey Harrel are scoring victories.
I'm not panicking. I could care less about your ignorance. Its the affect of your ignorance on others that is the reason I respond.
I have a a good friend of many years who is currently serving a 4 year sentence because he bought into a similar scheme. People that lead folks astray regarding the tax laws are the lowest of the lowest pond scum around.
The only thing we can conclude with any certainty is that the various circuits are in hopeless disagreement about what the "income" tax is. The Supreme Court is compounding the problem by refusing to rule one way or the other and settle this confusion and chaos. If the court system refuses to clarify the "income" tax, it's up to juries to nullify the law like they did in the Kuglin case.
Also, MACVSOG68, you do exactly what the IRS does when the statutues don't back them up in their lawless actions, you rush to the case law for backup. I attended an appeals hearing recently where an attorney presented all this case law to buttress the government's position. The plaintiff had done his homework and had volumes of case law where his position had been vindicated by one or another of the federal courts. What U.S. attorneys do in these instances is simply ignore any case law that refutes their position. They just pretend that you never raised the objection.
If you do enough digging, you can find some case somewhere where the courts have ruled against the government. Another reason why quoting case law keeps these discussion threads so lively...and pointless.
A couple of points:
First, I saw no confusion over whether wages is considered income in the cases I noted. I saw a lot of discussion that would appear to most reasonable people to shut the door on that part of the income issue. True, the Supreme Court did not rule on it, but then, did any of those who lost file an appeal? Not sure. But would you put good money on the Supreme Court overrulling almost every circuit court? And do you think the SC would somehow find logic in the thesis that the largest single pool of income (salaries and wages) was not intended by Congress to be a part of "Income from whatever source"?
You tell me that I run to case law when need backup. Read the thread. I only went to case law as a backup to support what I had been saying throughout the thread relying on my read of the law not court decisions. Funny though, the first thing you point to is the Kuglin decision....case law!
As for the Kuglin decision. You are wrong. I believe the jury ruled she was not guilty of tax evasion. It did not (nor could it) "nullify" the law which places her wages in the category of income. Personally, I put the Kuglin jury in the same pool as the O.J. jury, both ignoring the evidence and the law to make a political point. And, as I have pointed out earlier, Kuglin will pay those back taxes, plus interest and penalties.
You are correct in saying that case law is not consistent. But that applies in every facet of American life, not just the tax code. I pay no attention to district court rulings, because until they are ratified by Circuit or Supreme Court rulings, they are simply ignored by most. But don't ignore the place of court decisions as an overall part of the law, and certainly the income tax. The IRS considers most of them to be a part of the tax law.
I do not like the income tax for many reasons, and for these reasons fully support the sales tax as the basic revenue generator for the federal government. That being said, I will not resort to non-payment protests, economic terrorism or frivolous attempts to bog down the courts.
But from some of the posts I have seen on just this thread, there are many who would fight a sales tax, a tarriff or a user fee just a much as they fight the income tax.
I didn't recognize you at first but it's good to see you again middleman.
About that much quoted regulation referring to IRC Sec. 61.... I finally had a chance to look at that regulation (I own the Internal Revenue Code where statute Sec. 61 is) and it is just as I said, it is a benign regulation so even if the regulation CFR mentions wages (IRC code sec 61 does not), it has no effect of law. It does not even refer to the Sec. 61 statute, but, instead, to a series of treasury decisions.
Yep.... Those that try to lead people astray by making the voluntary income tax seem mandatory are the lowest pond scum around. And it's especially egregious to do it on a Conservative website dedicated to upholding constitutional rights and a limited government.
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.