[Stephen.S.]

The IRS just lost another case against a so-called tax evader. Former IRS CID Agent Joseph Banister was acquitted of all charges against him today! Why? Because the IRS could not site any Law that requires Americans to pay taxes.

I bet the IRS and our government are starting to get nervous. And they have reason to. When Americans finally wake up to the fact that they have been duped into paying taxes, what excuse or lie is our government going to provide that can explain away the fact that they have lied to Americans since 1913 about our obligation to pay Income Taxes on our wages.

-------

Former IRS CID Special Agent Joseph Banister Acquitted of Tax Fraud And Conspiracy

Government Unable To Prove U.S. Law Requires Income Tax Withholding or Filing

Sacramento California -- On Thursday June 23, a federal jury found former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Special Agent and CPA Joseph Banister not guilty of all counts alleging criminal tax fraud and conspiracy related to actions he took on behalf of a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over several years by stopping withholding of all income and employment taxes from the paychecks of his workers.

During the trial the Department of Justice was unable to put forth any evidence that Banister had either engaged in a conspiracy or had acted unlawfully when he shared legal research with business owner Al Thompson concluding that he had no legal obligation to withhold taxes from his workers or when he (Banister) prepared corrected tax returns for Thompson claiming his taxable income was, under U.S. law, zero.

During the trial, Banister's former supervisor at IRS’s San Jose CID office, Robert Gorini (who testified via video recording) when pointedly asked, was unable to cite any U.S. law that required Banister to pay income taxes.

Banister, who was forced to resign in 1999 after questioning IRS officials about their legal authority, gave Thompson’s worker’s a presentation in 2000 which reviewed his detailed investigative research of U.S. tax law which concluded that not only did the IRS lack any authority to impose income taxes on the workers, but there was no legal requirement for the business to withhold any taxes from the worker's paychecks.

[AKcrab]

Thanks for the link.

Was it simply that the guy couldn't cite the law at that particular moment, or that the law doesn't actually exist? This seems rather unbelievable.

[CreepingDeth]

How did the story go, that the amendment was never ratified or something of that nature?

[Superchicken]

Apparently in Canada income tax was made during WW1 or 2 can't remember, and my uncle basically told the gov that the reason for it is gone and something or other... anyway so he doesn't pay taxes... dono why my parents didn't decide to do the same...

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Thanks for the link.

Was it simply that the guy couldn't cite the law at that particular moment, or that the law doesn't actually exist? This seems rather unbelievable.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/ My apologies. Scroll down to see the story.

As hard as it is to believe, the law doesn't actually exist.


-

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

How did the story go, that the amendment was never ratified or something of that nature?

That is one belief. There is substantial documentation to support that claim, but no, that is not what this case involves.

This case centers around the fact that there IS NO LAW that requires one to pay income tax. For our gov't to tax us there must first be a LAW allowing them to do so.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), each and every government form that is used to collect information from the general public under law must be linked to its authorizing statutes and implementing regulations and have a valid Office of Management and Budget “OMB” Form number. This requirement of law provides an orderly means to identify which statutes, regulations and forms are related. When complying with the requirements of the PRA, the IRS must site on the form, the statutes and regulations which actually authorize the government to collect said information. There are two Forms. OMB Form 83 and OMB Form 83-1. OMB Form 83 requires statutes and regulations. OMB Form 83-1 does not because it is explicitly reserved for “PROPOSED” government forms.

So the question is.... If we are required to pay taxes on our income, why does the IRS file Form 83-1 with the OMB instead of Form 83? If there is a LAW requiring us to pay taxes, they should be using Form 83, which requires they cite the statutes and regulations requiring us to do so.

Furthermore, 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR 1.861-8 describe when DOMESTIC income is taxable, and neither of those sections show the domestic income of the average American to be taxable.

Lets look at it another way. If I call the local Police station and ask them what statute I would be in violation of for borrowing my neighbors car without their permission, they could easily cite the statute. Call the IRS and ask them what statute requires you to pay income taxes on your earnings and you won't get an answer. Why? Because there is none.

Watch the video here http://www.givemeliberty.org/wtp-tv/4MinLinks.htm and ask yourself this question. If there's a statute that requires us to pay income tax on our earnings, why doesn't the IRS just answer the question so that people will stop asking the question? Why? Because there is none.

[Kevin]

[Ghoser777]

I hate that image. So far this is a discussion of law, not politics. As long as it stays that way, I say this thread stays.

[zizban]

There is a constitutional amendment that gives the gov't the power to levy an income tax, why didn't they pass a law to make it so? weird.

[budster101]

Coolness!

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by zizban

There is a constitutional amendment that gives the gov't the power to levy an income tax, why didn't they pass a law to make it so? weird.

zizban. A little case history may be in order here....

In 1909, the meaning of the word “income” did not mean money received by a worker in direct exchange for that person’s human labor. It meant money derived from capital or labor or both, as, for example, money (profit) derived by Wal-Mart or Merrill Lynch from the labor of its workers. At the turn of the previous century, it was well understood that the legal term “income” did not mean the wages or salary earned by the worker for his own labor.

Today, due to the well-packaged web of lies that has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, most people today incorrectly believe “income” means not only money derived from someone else’s labor, but also money earned by workers in direct exchange for their own labor.

------------

In 1909, the U.S. Congress passed a proposed “income tax” Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of which was simply to clarify the fact that Congress had the power under the existing clauses of the Constitution to tax income derived from real estate, stocks, bonds and other forms of capital, without apportioning the tax among the taxpayers --- that is, without requiring every taxpayer to pay the exact same amount.  

The crime and the cover-up began in 1913 with actions taken by both the Executive and Legislative branches. In 1913, just thirty days before he was set to leave office, the U.S. Secretary of State, Philander Knox, declared by his certification that the proposed Amendment had been legally and properly ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, despite the well documented fact that he had been informed by his solicitor general that the Amendment had not come close to being ratified. The Congress adopted the Amendment as the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

Within months of the fraudulent declaration by Knox, Congress crafted and passed the Income Tax Act of 1913, which included a definition of “income,” that stretched the meaning of the legal term “income” well beyond the constitutional meaning and well beyond the documented intent of the framers of the Amendment, as recorded in every official and professional document of the era: the Congressional Record, congressional committee reports, law reviews, journals of political science, newspapers of record and so forth.  

With its statutory, unconstitutional definition of “income,” Congress improperly broadened the definition of “income” to include money received by a person in direct exchange for that person’s labor. In technical terms, Congress included a “non-apportioned, direct tax” on the salaries, wages and compensation of all American workers. Even though the Act exempted from the tax those workers earning less than $4,000, the government soon began to receive so much money from the “income” tax that its revenue increased from about $380 million in 1914 to more than $3.7 billion by 1918. The Income Tax Act of 1913 also instituted withholding at the source and the tax return, Form 1040. 

With these features, the Income Tax Act of 1913 provided the government with a stream of revenue that enabled it to spend large amounts of money before it had it. The central government not only had much more money to spend, it could now do whatever it wanted to do, even if it did not have the money to do it.

At its heart, the Income Tax Act of 1913 enabled the government to pledge, as collateral (to the FED), the labor of its citizens to secure its debt. The government could now guarantee the repayment of borrowed money by forcefully taking bread from the mouths of labor.

However, the still-standing Constitution prohibited a tax on labor. The Income Tax Act of 1913 was soon tested in Court. In 1916, the Supreme Court brought the unconstitutional labor tax to a screeching halt. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific, 240 U.S. 1 (and the cases bundled with it, including Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103), that wages are not income within the meaning of the income tax Amendment to the Constitution, or any other provision of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's decision in Brushaber soundly rejected the government’s self-interested interpretation of the definition of “income” within the meaning of the Constitution, and specifically limited “to whom” and “where” the income tax could apply.

The Brushaber court explicitly concluded that the16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation, meaning that direct taxes on wages, salaries and compensation received by workers in direct exchange for their labor fell outside of the meaning of the 16th Amendment and still must satisfy the fundamental requirement of apportionment as a direct tax.

The Brushaber decision forced Congress to consider changing the statutory definition of “income,” to bring it in line with the Constitution. However, true to form and consistent with the nature of governmental power, the government was loathe to relinquish the spoils and booty that flowed from its direct tax on labor, and the power and control that came with the tax (and its enforcement mechanisms).

The crime continued in the halls of Congress and in the White House with the adoption of the Income Tax Act of 1916 (amended in 1917).  Although the 1916 Act ended withholding of wages, salaries and compensation and ordered the money that had been withheld from workers to be returned to those workers, and the Treasury Secretary issued Treasury Directive 2635 and saw to it that the money withheld was returned.... the 1916 Act failed to define the legal term “income.”

While the act carried over the definition of “income” from the 1913 Act, Congress specifically qualified in Section 25 of the Act that the "income" subject to the 1913 Act was not the same “income” to be taxed under the 1916 Act. No further explanation was provided in the Act. In other words, after the Supreme Court's explicit ruling in Brushaber, the government adopted a revised tax law that said, in effect, “the meaning of the word ‘income’ has changed but we are not going to tell you how.”

Confused or ignorant of the law, and too patriotic and engaged with World War I to question their government, workers toiling above the $4,000 exemption level kept sending in their Form 1040’s and paying a tax on money earned by them in direct exchange for their own labor. As the years went on, the tax rates went up, the exemptions dropped, and more Americans succumbed to the popular belief that the law required them to file and pay. 

During the great Depression, the crime deepened.

While the more wealthy workers were unwittingly continuing to pay a tax on money earned in direct exchange for their labor, not just on their passive income, Congress and the President, again acted without constitutional authority, and in defiance of the now numerous (and consistent) rulings of the United States Supreme Court (the latest ruling coming in 1920 in Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189).

In 1933 the government adopted a law forcing all workers to pay an “income” tax by another name, on money earned in direct exchange for their own labor. The new labor tax was called a “Social Security” tax. Along with this new unconstitutional labor tax, withholding was re-instituted in America.

During World War II, the crime deepened further.

Once again, in defiance of the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President instituted still another labor tax on all Americans, not just the wealthy, calling it a, “Victory Tax.” Along with the “Victory Tax” came withholding of the “Victory Tax” at the source.

Drunk with power, taking advantage of the People during times of strife, the government was “piling on” one direct labor tax after another, calling them “income” taxes, without ever statutorily defining the term “income.” The “Victory Tax” was a tax on the money people earned in direct exchange for their own labor. The People were told that “Victory Tax” would expire with the conclusion of the War. It didn’t. Neither did withholding. The Victory Tax continued unabated, becoming the Federal Income Tax of today.

In 1965, the crime deepened even further.

Once again, in defiance of the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President piled on yet another direct tax on the labor of all working men and women, calling it a “Medicare Tax.” Along with the “Medicare Tax” came withholding of the “Medicare Tax” at the source.

Since passing the Income Taxt Act of 1913, numerous Supreme Court Rulings have stated the same conclusion: THE 16th AMENDMENT DID NOT CONFER NEW TAXING POWERS TO CONGRESS TO TAX THE AMERICAN CITIZEN LIVING AND WORKING WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Evans v. Gore 253 U.S. 245,259 (1920))

I believe our government has lied to us all along concerning our obligation to pay taxes on our wages. And all the research and reading I've done on the subject supports my belief.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Good reading.

Now, lets all stop paying our income taxes. You first

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by E's Lil Theorem

Good reading.

Now, lets all stop paying our income taxes. You first

How do you know that I AM paying taxes.

[macintologist]

Here's another reason for the IRS to worry. They might get their mob asses kicked out of DC once and for all...


www.fairtax.org

[budster101]

Awesome.

The IRS couldn't pass their own audits, how can they expect to audit others?
They SUCK.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by Stephen.S.

How do you know that I AM paying taxes.

I don't. But, if you aren't, good for you. Unfortunately, if I were to stop paying income taxes, I would not have the time, nor would I want to spend the resources in fighting the IRS when they come after me.

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Here's another reason for the IRS to worry. They might get their mob asses kicked out of DC once and for all...


www.fairtax.org

Of all the plans I've studied, I think the Fair Tax Plan is the best of them all. Unfortunately, Governments are seldom willing to relinquish power once they have it.

With the Tax Reform Panel due to make its recommendation next month, it's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. Can fairness overcome governmental greed? We shall see.

[budster101]

FLAT TAX across the boards baby!

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by budster101

FLAT TAX across the boards baby!

No! No! A Flax tax would be almost as bad as what we have now. Why? It is still a DIRECT, UNAPPORTIONED TAX on your labor.

[MacNStein]

This thread just made my day.

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by E's Lil Theorem

I don't. But, if you aren't, good for you. Unfortunately, if I were to stop paying income taxes, I would not have the time, nor would I want to spend the resources in fighting the IRS when they come after me.

I understand the reluctance of many to take on the IRS and I do not fault anyone for that. Some of us are in a better position than others to wage this war against a seemingly invincible foe.

We only ask that those who cannot fight support those of us who are willing to do so. Together, we CAN beat the IRS by bringing to the attention of all Americans, the seriousness of the tax fraud being perpetrated by our government against them.

In the end, we will win. In the end, we'll all be better off.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by Stephen.S.

I understand the reluctance of many to take on the IRS and I do not fault anyone for that. Some of us are in a better position than others to wage this war against a seemingly invincible foe.

We only ask that those who cannot fight support those of us who are willing to do so. Together, we CAN beat the IRS by bringing to the attention of all Americans, the seriousness of the tax fraud being perpetrated by our government against them.

In the end, we will win. In the end, we'll all be better off.

I'm all for that

[CreepingDeth]

macintologist, have you become some anti-IRS zealot? Dear, what has happened?

[ghporter]

I'd like to see some organization not related to tax protest cover that story. I'm suspicious of a story that only shows up on web sites of organizations that the story supports or that can capitalize on the story. A docket number, for example, would be very useful in providing background reading to understand the issues in the case.

Now for the down side of "not paying taxes." Where does money for road improvement come from? For various welfare programs? For the myriad functions of government that everyone agrees are useful and necesary?

The fact that we have a tax collecting agency, or that we are taxed in the first place is not a problem. The problem with the IRS is that its marching orders are based on a complex maze of regulations and procedures that implement an even more complex group of tax laws that NOBODY can actually understand. Instead of just not paying taxes-and putting people out of work, into the street and making them hungry too-maybe we should be demanding a tax code that can be understood by the average taxpayer.

[CreepingDeth]

Who said we all agreed welfare was useful?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

Who said we all agreed welfare was useful?

In general, the impression that various welfare programs go to hereditary welfare families who soak up money and do nothing else is completely erroneous. And would you rather a young mother escaping an abusive marriage starve to death because there's no help for her to buy food?

[CreepingDeth]

Private charities.

[d0ubled0wn]

Paying taxes? I've solved that problem by seceding my land from the Union. My country is called Petoria.

[CreepingDeth]

…only to repatriate in a week.

By the way, does anyone understand that baby?

[ghporter]

They say that a double negative generates a positive, but that there's no "positive" statement corresponding to a double negative. They're wrong, and so are you: "Yeah, right."

Private charities are all so focused that they would let almost everyone fall through the cracks. In particular, most charities are based on membership in some group-often religious-that intentionally excludes anyone who is not a member or potential member. Private charities help, but they are not a replacement for government assistance which institutionally ensures that regardless of a person's background, race, ethnicity, or religious affiliation, they get the help they need.

I don't believe you've gotten me defending welfare programs, but they are essential. So is the Food and Drug Administration-or would you prefer that the meat packers decided what was allowable in your packaged meat? So is the FAA, or would you rather that everyone in the air just "did their own thing?" The list goes on, and taking welfare as a point is really disingenuous. Without an income, government ceases to be, and without government, the worst in people-particularly those with power-comes out. What was Carneigie like before he found that philanthropy was a good thing? He was one of the worst robber barons ever. As was Getty. Human societies need a structure to restrain the powerful and ensure that systems of production and distribution function. That structure is called "government."

Further, about 20% of the U.S. workforce works for a governmental agency. The Department of Defense alone employs approximately 5.3 million people including 2.6 million active and reserve military personnel, over 650,000 civilians, and over 2 million retirees. DoD is nowhere near the largest employer in the Federal Government.

[CreepingDeth]

Oh, please. To be honest, I don't give a damn. Either way, it says nowhere in our Constitution that we have to give sustenance to those who can't get it themselves.

1. The FDA should not decide what products go on the market.
2. With the mass media, a beak in a chicken McNigget gets reported. If a company put, say, nails in their meat a) people should be smart enough to notice this and b) the company gets damaging press which is not good for business.
3. If I hear one more demonization of Carnegie, I will scream. What don't you get about his innovation and his impact on those beloved manufacturing industries you all like to bellyache about?
4. Furthermore, government's only essential role is to keep the peace, not make serfs out of people through condescending compassion.

[ghporter]

Our country was based on self sufficiency, but in a context of community responsibility. I'd like to see the look on your face when your neighbor starts to go hungry and you say "too bad."

1. The FDA determines whether a product is safe, and can prevent unsafe products from going on the market. I disagree with your statement flatly.

2. Without supervision of what goes into food, you won't know what is in it, and unscrupulous manufacturers can put whatever they want in your food. Like rat feces? People are NOT smart enough to be able to inspect their own food, because manufacturers are very smart at hiding what they put in. Big companies can squelch bad press.

3. Until he "found Jesus," Andrew Carniegie was one of the most demonic of the robber barons. His employees were forced to live in hovels, buy everything from the "company store" and work in conditions that could make the Gulag look like a vacation. The realization of his inhumanity is one reason that he changed his ways and did so much for people-to make up for how badly he'd treated so many people. I don't think he was a moster-I think he was completely isolated from what his company was doing with its employees, and he just didn't care to look into it. He was indeed VERY BAD, but changed and tried to make up for it. He did this ONLY because he was at last forced to see what his factories looked like-to avoid governmental action instigated by another large company.

4. Fine, I don't like being babied either. But we have been struggling with where to draw the line between independence and dependence for decades. The line has swung in one direction then the other several times. Further, without government working to provide a "level playing field" this country could descend into a completely disfunctional society dominated by the rich and powerful. That leveling is done by laws and regulations that keep big companies from rolling over their workers, their customers, and everyone else.

All of these functions are part of the "social contract" that government is built on. There are ways you can voice your dissatisfaction with any part of that, starting with writing your representatives and letting them know what you don't like. But I am not going to sit by and let kids starve because their parents have had the bad luck to be on the short end of a layoff. Are you?

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I'd like to see some organization not related to tax protest cover that story.

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?UR...ess/24irs.html

use: joebanister (for username and password)

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44956

http://www.taxanalysts.com/

Want to read about the trial straight from the man charged in the case: http://joebanister.blogspot.com/

[CreepingDeth]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Our country was based on self sufficiency, but in a context of community responsibility. I'd like to see the look on your face when your neighbor starts to go hungry and you say "too bad."

1. The FDA determines whether a product is safe, and can prevent unsafe products from going on the market. I disagree with your statement flatly.

2. Without supervision of what goes into food, you won't know what is in it, and unscrupulous manufacturers can put whatever they want in your food. Like rat feces? People are NOT smart enough to be able to inspect their own food, because manufacturers are very smart at hiding what they put in. Big companies can squelch bad press.

3. Until he "found Jesus," Andrew Carniegie was one of the most demonic of the robber barons. His employees were forced to live in hovels, buy everything from the "company store" and work in conditions that could make the Gulag look like a vacation. The realization of his inhumanity is one reason that he changed his ways and did so much for people-to make up for how badly he'd treated so many people. I don't think he was a moster-I think he was completely isolated from what his company was doing with its employees, and he just didn't care to look into it. He was indeed VERY BAD, but changed and tried to make up for it. He did this ONLY because he was at last forced to see what his factories looked like-to avoid governmental action instigated by another large company.

4. Fine, I don't like being babied either. But we have been struggling with where to draw the line between independence and dependence for decades. The line has swung in one direction then the other several times. Further, without government working to provide a "level playing field" this country could descend into a completely disfunctional society dominated by the rich and powerful. That leveling is done by laws and regulations that keep big companies from rolling over their workers, their customers, and everyone else.

All of these functions are part of the "social contract" that government is built on. There are ways you can voice your dissatisfaction with any part of that, starting with writing your representatives and letting them know what you don't like. But I am not going to sit by and let kids starve because their parents have had the bad luck to be on the short end of a layoff. Are you?

I don't think you fully understand the concept: It is not the job of the government to aid those who cannot provide for themselves. There is not a single mention of giving handouts in our Constitution. Period.

1. Okay, so what about them determining that 'pill x' did not give the desired results?

2. Oh, yes. They'll spend hours of time in R&D thinking of ways to sneak rat poison in. After all, it doesn't hurt business by putting things in that hurt the people that are buying it. No, not at all. Quit acting stupid. Everyone hears about nasty fast food chicken feet and whatnot. Unlike the government, businesses do not have the legal power to suppress the press.

3. Nobody forces you to join a job. They were getting paid and they agreed to the terms, no matter how bad they may have been. However, a smart company would have offered more to attract employees. Take Henry Ford when he gave his workers more than twice the average wage.

4. Know what? **** the level playing field. It is only created when the government clips the wings of one to better another party. What you don't seem to understand is that the government is not here to be our kind generous uncle. A government was established for the sole purpose of keeping law & order, thus the necessity for the military and police force. Outside that, the government really has no other purpose. A level playing field is one that does not have someone robbing you to enrich another. The check in capitalism is that there is no legal coercion, so nobody can stop you from screaming 'look what they're putting in there' or going somewhere else for a more desirable product. Go read a book on economics and get back to me on how 'Further, without government working to provide a "level playing field" this country could descend into a completely disfunctional society dominated by the rich and powerful.'

5. 'Social contract'? Explain. Oh, and about your layoff scenario, I've been on the short end of the stick with that one, so don't even tell me I have no idea what the hell it is like. Have you ever made Ramen in a coffee maker? Their kids will not starve. I didn't. People find ways. Responsible people that is. People aren't going to wallow in their misery. They will look for work, no matter how low it might be. That's called survival.

[sminch]

as someone who works in food safety (specifically pesticide residue limits in food) i sure as hell don't want the government bodies behind this to be scrapped. i work in the private sector so it's not my job that'd be on the line, but no way would private companies be able to do what the fda etc does. do you really want pest-co chemicals assuring farmers that their sprays are safe, or would you rather someone without a vested interest was doing that job?

taxes are going to be spent in inherently inefficient ways as they have no motivation to save, for sure, but the organisations spending them do have the advantage of being huge so are probably more efficient because of that. if you scrap the fda, police, road maintenance, faa etc etc you probably won't save yourself a huge amount of money if you ever leave the house cos your airfares will triple to cover the costs of the faa being run privately, you'll have to have a neighborhood fund to put a rent-a-cop on every corner plus shell out a couple of thousand if you make a 911 call or want the neo-police to investigate some punk breaking into your house, and how much do you think it'll cost to fill your car with gas if you're having to pay a dozen roading contractors to work on the roads. guess you'll be screwed if you live outside of a city, too, cos it'll be you and your three neighbours paying for your power lines, gas, phone, and roads instead of the whole state subsidising you...

i guess it'd benefit some people (ie. those who don't fly, drive, eat commercially produced food, or care if the cops continue to exist) but the rest of us would just keep paying for the same services anyway.

sminch

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Now for the down side of "not paying taxes." Where does money for road improvement come from? For various welfare programs? For the myriad functions of government that everyone agrees are useful and necesary?

No one is saying taxes aren't necessary. I am not advocating not having income taxes. What I do question is the "legality of our current income tax system".

The problem with the IRS is that its marching orders are based on a complex maze of regulations and procedures that implement an even more complex group of tax laws that NOBODY can actually understand.

It's complex for no other reason than to confuse and hide the truth from the people.

[dreilly1]

From the Times article:

"Promoters make a lot of money off their marks, watch their marks go to jail for not paying taxes and then take advantage of a loophole that lets them prepare bogus returns that they characterize as protest returns" prepared at the direction of the client.

Mr. Banister was not charged with any failure to pay taxes.

Defense lawyers said that as a certified public accountant, his only duty was to prepare a return that accurately reflected the tax positions of his clients and to disclose them to the I.R.S.

This guy basically makes his living by giving out bad tax advice very carefully, so that his clients go to jail, and he doesn't. I don't think the IRS has to worry because of him.

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

From the Times article:

This guy basically makes his living by giving out bad tax advice very carefully, so that his clients go to jail, and he doesn't. I don't think the IRS has to worry because of him.

The quote is straight from the mouth of a Tax Lawyer. No surprise there. With no IRS to do his bidding, he'll find himself out of a job. In the meantime, I'm sure he's rather comfy kknowing that by complicating the tax code, everyday Americans who don't understand the code may one day need his services.

As for the IRS worrying because of "him". Probably not. They have much bigger problems to worry about!

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by Stephen.S.

The quote is straight from the mouth of a Tax Lawyer. No surprise there. With no IRS to do his bidding, he'll find himself out of a job. In the meantime, I'm sure he's rather comfy kknowing that by complicating the tax code, everyday Americans who don't understand the code may one day need his services.

As for the IRS worrying because of "him". Probably not. They have much bigger problems to worry about!

Well, you can believe what you want, and discount what the guy says simply because he is a tax lawyer. But it's still the case that not a single person has sucessfully evaded taxes using these techniques. (Your friend, Mr. Bannister, was not accused of evading taxes in his trial.)

I did some reading on this a while back, and finally tracked down one of the more informative sites at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html . Granted, he's a lawyer, too, but all his arguments are persuasive.

You might be interested in Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code makes an ordinary citizen liable for the income tax., which I think is the argument your first post was making....

An attorney named Thomas J. Carley argued before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that "[n]owhere in any of the Statutes of the United States is there any section of law making any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on 'taxable income.'" The Second Circuit responded that "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.) (hereinafter the Code) provides in plain, clear and precise language that '[t]here is hereby imposed the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with' tables set-out later in the statute. ... Despite the appellant's attempted contorted construction of the statutory scheme, we find that it coherently and forthrightly imposed upon the appellant tax upon his income for the year 1980." Ficalora v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. den. 105 S.Ct. 1869 (1985).

Oddly enough, the same attorney raised nearly the identical argument before the Eighth Circuit, arguing that there was "no law imposing an income tax" on his clients. The Eighth Circuit held that the appeal was "frivolous" and imposed a penalty on the appellants of double the Commissioner's costs of the appeal. Lively v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 1983).

Even more incredibly, only a year after losing the Lively appeal, and six month after losing the Ficalora appeal, the same attorney, Thomas J. Carley, raises the same idiot issue with the 10th Circuit, questioning "Whether there is any law or statute imposing an income tax on appellants for the year 1977 and, if such a law or statute is claimed to exist, what is the precise citation of such law or statute?" The 10th Circuit quoted from both the Ficalora and Lively opinions, and then spent the rest of the opinion explaining why it was going to impose sanctions on Mr. Carley personally (not his clients). "It is obvious that despite having full knowledge of the learned opinions of two different Article III courts and the accurate reasoning of the Tax Court in Manley [v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 46 T.C.M. 1359 (1983), another case lost by Mr. Carley)] concerning his arguments, Carley has failed to learn that he has no right to occupy the time of such courts with frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious proceedings, and that if he does so, he exposes not only his clients but also himself personally to sanctions." Charczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 771 F.2d 471, 474 (10th Cir. 1985). The court also referred to Mr. Carley's arguments as "meritless," "preposterous," "nearly silly," and "that thoroughly defy common sense."

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

Well, you can believe what you want, and discount what the guy says simply because he is a tax lawyer. But it's still the case that not a single person has sucessfully evaded taxes using these techniques. (Your friend, Mr. Bannister, was not accused of evading taxes in his trial.)

I did some reading on this a while back, and finally tracked down one of the more informative sites at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html . Granted, he's a lawyer, too, but all his arguments are persuasive.

You might be interested in Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code makes an ordinary citizen liable for the income tax., which I think is the argument your first post was making....

Mr. Banister is not my friend. I have never met the man, nor do I know him personally. I do on the other hand support his findings.

While there are certainly tax-evaders out there, no one I'm aware of in the Truth in Taxation movement is attempting to evade taxes. We are only asking our government one simple question: Please cite the statues and citations which require Americans to pay taxes on their wages. Don't you find it odd that our government; instead of just answering the question and putting it to rest once for all would rather take those who question the supposed LAW to court. I don't know about you... but I do.

Tax Courts are not truly courts and as such should not be called courts. The reason people lose in these so called tax courts is because these courts can not rule on LAW or the Constitutionality of the tax system. This is where people screw up. They are bringing up the legality of the Income tax System in the WRONG court.

The IRS Code is not LAW. But lets assume for the moment it was. The IRS's own manual clearly states in para 4.10.7.2.9.8:

"Decisions made at various levels of the court system are to be considered interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position."

Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code"

In EVANS v. GORE 253 U.S. 245,259 (1920) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
"Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say: "It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this ammendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before."

Here the Government itself just admitted that the 16th Amendment did not confer any new powers of taxation.

Just as the issue of wages was settled in countless Supreme Court decisions, the IRS simply chooses to look the other way. What the Supreme Court establishes in EVANS v. GORE was that not only did the 16th Amendment NOT confer new taxing powers to Congress to tax the American Citizen living and working within the Unites States of America, but it also acknowledged the definition of INCOME as defined by the Supreme Court in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107,144 (1911).

Whether Americans choose to believe the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows Congress and the IRS have no right to tax our wages is of course entirely up to them. I for one believe it based on all of my research and readings on the matter. I am more than willing to pay taxes when and if the IRS does one thing. And that is to stand in front of a TV camera and tell the American People what statute and citation requires us to pay taxes on our wages.

I don't think I'm asking for much. After all. If I go to the IRS web site I see the "The IRS Mission" is to "Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all."

Well. Darnit. I don't understand the tax law and I want them to explain it to me... yet every time I ask, they refuse to give me an answer. They aren't being very helpful. Now why is that?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Stephen.S.

The quote is straight from the mouth of a Tax Lawyer. No surprise there. With no IRS to do his bidding, he'll find himself out of a job. In the meantime, I'm sure he's rather comfy kknowing that by complicating the tax code, everyday Americans who don't understand the code may one day need his services.

That's a novel one. I'm sure if you ever got yourself indicted (perhaps for tax evasion) you'd be careful not to take the advice of any criminal defense lawyer. After all, they might know what they are talking about. Or if you get appendicitis, be careful not to talk to a surgeon -- because, you know, if people didn't get sick, they'd be out of a job, and that makes doctors suspect.

Tax lawyers, for your information, spend most of their time helping people pay as little tax as they can legally get away with. They aren't the agents of the IRS. The relationship is (politely and professionally), quite the opposite.

In fact, if there were some blindingly obvious infirmity in the tax laws, tax lawyers would be the ones who would find it. That's what their clients would dearly love them to be able to do! But they can't of course, because this is all completely settled law. The only people who think otherwise are cranks or crooks.

Anyway, go practice giving yourself an appendectomy. You'd do less harm dabbling in that.

[JoshuaZ]

Maybe things would be better if more people paid taxes. Appearently 30% of us don't at all.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...tage_of_a.html

[MacMan4000]

Woo Hoo! I'm gonna read this book then stop paying taxes!

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Stephen.S.

... the Truth in Taxation movement ...

The Tit movement? It's called the Tit movement?

[dreilly1]

If your TiT movement is really devoted to making the tax code easier for all of us, then you would do yourself a favor by steering away from arguments that have already been well worn out. They didn't lose because they weren't argued well, they lost because they were wrong!

Originally Posted by Stephen.S.

We are only asking our government one simple question: Please cite the statues and citations which require Americans to pay taxes on their wages. Don't you find it odd that our government; instead of just answering the question and putting it to rest once for all would rather take those who question the supposed LAW to court. I don't know about you... but I do.

Originally Posted by Dan Evans' FAQ:

Irwin Schiff once appeared on television and offered to pay $100,000 to anyone who could identify the section of the Internal Revenue Code that impose any liability for tax. A man named Richard Newman identified sections 1, 6012, 6151, 6153, 7201, 7202 and 7203 in a telephone call to the television station the following morning and then sued Schiff when he refused to pay the $100,000. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Newman was right about the tax laws and that Schiff's claim was "ridiculous," but ruled for Schiff because Newman did not telephone the television station with the correct answer within the time specified in Schiff's offer (i.e., during the time that Schiff was actually on the air). Neuman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985).

Originally Posted by Stephen.S.

Tax Courts are not truly courts and as such should not be called courts.

Originally Posted by Dan Evans' FAQ:

The tax laws cannot be enforced against citizens in federal courts, because federal courts are "admiralty" or "maritime" courts.
As ridiculous as this claim is, at least one court has taken the time to refute it:

"The Saunders argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the summonses. In support of their position, they cite The Glide, 167 U.S. 606, 623-24, 17 S.Ct. 930, 936, 42 L.Ed. 296 (1897), which holds that '[t]he maritime and admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution and laws of the United States upon the district courts of the United States is exclusive.' The Saunders apparently interpret this language as limiting the jurisdiction of federal district courts to admiralty and maritime actions. The Saunders also seem to believe that, by issuing a notice of dishonor under the Uniform Commercial Code, they prevent the IRS from characterizing this case as a contract in admiralty or a maritime action, leaving the district court no basis for jurisdiction.
"The Saunders reading of The Glide founders. In describing the district courts' maritime and admiralty jurisdiction as 'exclusive' the Supreme Court excluded state courts from adjudicating either category of lawsuit. The Court did not, by employing the phrase 'exclusive,' delimit the bases of federal jurisdiction. To the contrary, Congress has expressly directed federal district courts to hear tax enforcement matters. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b), 7604(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1340. We have repeatedly confirmed the authority--indeed, duty--of the district courts to adjudicate tax summons cases such as the one being prosecuted here. See, e.g., United States v. Author Servs., Inc., 804 F.2d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.1986), amended, 811 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir.1987)." United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991).

Originally Posted by Stephen.S.

The IRS Code is not LAW. But lets assume for the moment it was.

Originally Posted by Dan Evans' FAQ:

The Internal Revenue Code is not law.
The arguments that the Internal Revenue Code is not a valid statute are all strange, and take several different forms.
One form of argument is simply that the Internal Revenue Code was never enacted. This is easily disproved by checking the records of the U.S. Congress. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514. (Public Laws are numbered consecutively within each session of Congress, each session lasting two years. The Congress that convened in January of 2001 is the 107th, so the first bill passed by that Congress and signed by the President will become P.L. 107-1, the second will be P.L. 107-2, and so forth.)

The other argument is more subtle and more complicated. Many of the statutes of the United States have been "codified," or reorganized into more orderly collections of statutes known as the "United States Code," which is divided by subject matter into "titles." As part of this codification, many statutes that were enacted separately have been reenacted together as part of the United States Code, so that the Code itself became "positive law." For example, the statutes relating to federal courts have been organized and reenacted as Title 28 of the United States Code. When referring to a provision of Title 28, it is usually not necessary to worry about when or how it was enacted; all you need to do is refer to the right section of Title 28. For convenient reference, the Internal Revenue Code has been published as Title 26 of the United States Code but, technically speaking, has never been enacted as part of the United States Code. This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, but that Title 26 itself is not "positive law," which remains in the revenue laws enacted by Congress (such as Public Law 591 of 1954 and Public Law 99-514) which can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large.

The distinction between Title 26 of the United States Code and "positive law" is purely technical and would never be important to anyone unless the U.S. Government Printing Office made a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant law, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code.

So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code as not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant.

If you take the time to look into the other claims, you'll find that either Mr. Evans (or someone else) has refuted it already for you. Tax reform is a good cause, and worthy of your effort. I don't advocate a flat tax but I recognize it as a legitimate option, so if you like that, write your congressman about it. Don't cast your lot with these tax protestors and their made-up excuses, because all they want to do is make money at your expense.

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's a novel one. I'm sure if you ever got yourself indicted (perhaps for tax evasion) you'd be careful not to take the advice of any criminal defense lawyer. After all, they might know what they are talking about. Or if you get appendicitis, be careful not to talk to a surgeon -- because, you know, if people didn't get sick, they'd be out of a job, and that makes doctors suspect.

Tax lawyers, for your information, spend most of their time helping people pay as little tax as they can legally get away with. They aren't the agents of the IRS. The relationship is (politely and professionally), quite the opposite.

In fact, if there were some blindingly obvious infirmity in the tax laws, tax lawyers would be the ones who would find it. That's what their clients would dearly love them to be able to do! But they can't of course, because this is all completely settled law. The only people who think otherwise are cranks or crooks.

Anyway, go practice giving yourself an appendectomy. You'd do less harm dabbling in that.

You're correct. I wouldn'tt enlist the services of a tax lawyer (or any person for that matter) who cannot show me the statute or ciation that requires me to pay taxes on my wages. Or more importantly, explain to me where I might be misinterpreting the LAW. EVERY tax lawyer I have spoken to has been unable to show me the LAW or refuses to even talk about it. Now why is that? How hard can it be to open a book and say, "Here is the LAW....?"

It would appear that you are no dofferent than most Americans. You blindly put your faith in those you perceive to be experts in their field. I on the other hand do not.

I imagine you beleive there is some law that requires you to have a Social Security number too! Why don't you look into it youself. You WILL be surprised what you learn.

Why is it that proving a "theory" always requires a comprehensive explanation of the evidence,
while rebutting a theory only requires poking a hole in it? Why is it that anything which doesn't align with conventional wisdom is immediately written off as idiotic or not true?

It's unfortuante that the majority of Americans never take the time to do their own research; to form their own opinion; to learn the truth for themsleves; to question conventional wisdom when the facts don't agree.

To beleive that tax lawyers know everything is ludicrous. They only know what they are taught about tax law and what they are willing to learn about tax law on their own. Nothing more.

Just becasue a person knows than Apple makes the Macintosh computer does not make that person an expert on Apple Computer. Just because a person knows something about finding loopholes in tax code does not make them an expert in Tax LAW.

The mere fact that I question my government makes me a crank or crook? So be it. I can accept that. It's far better than the alternative. Being a sheep!

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Stephen.S.

No one is saying taxes aren't necessary. I am not advocating not having income taxes. What I do question is the "legality of our current income tax system".

The problem with the IRS is that its marching orders are based on a complex maze of regulations and procedures that implement an even more complex group of tax laws that NOBODY can actually understand.

It's complex for no other reason than to confuse and hide the truth from the people.

That's either an indication that you buy into the "conspiracy" claims about the U.S. Congress, or that you give those people in Congress far too much credit. To say that the tax code is intentionally obfuscated is to say that somebody has enough understanding of it to make it that way. This is plainly not the case, as many tax-related statutes are so poorly written as to require modification as soon as somebody finds the morre glaring errors and inconsistencies in them. It keeps a lot of legislators busy.

The fact is that laws are generally written by lawyers, and they like to keep their jargon in use to hopefully keep their profession employed in interpreting those laws. Unfortunately for all of us, that jargon gets pretty deep pretty fast, and even the brightest of attorneys has trouble finding some unambiguous meaning for much of current law.

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

If your TiT movement is really devoted to making the tax code easier for all of us, then you would do yourself a favor by steering away from arguments that have already been well worn out. They didn't lose because they weren't argued well, they lost because they were wrong!

If you take the time to look into the other claims, you'll find that either Mr. Evans (or someone else) has refuted it already for you. Tax reform is a good cause, and worthy of your effort. I don't advocate a flat tax but I recognize it as a legitimate option, so if you like that, write your congressman about it. Don't cast your lot with these tax protestors and their made-up excuses, because all they want to do is make money at your expense.

I do not rely on anyone to form my opinions. I form my opinions based on the facts in front of me. And I will say once again what I have been saying all along. Until the IRS or our government stands up and cites what statutes and citations require the American people to pay taxes on their wages, I am suspect of our government.

You only need to open your eyes to the simple fact that the only thing the IRS ever quotes to support their position are Tax Court Rulings. Now why is that? Why don't they just tell every American what LAW requires us to pay taxes on our wages and put this question to rest once and for all.

Instead, they spend miliions of taxpayer dollars taking these so called tax-offenders and tax-evaders to court so they can quote another court case which supports their claim. Sorry. I'm not buying it. I want to see a staute. I want to see a citation. I want to see the LAW. Not the IRS or Tax Court interpretation of it!

As for Mr. Evans. I can shoot so many holes in his claims that it's not even worth the trouble or effort to do so.

[Stephen.S.]

Originally Posted by ghporter

That's either an indication that you buy into the "conspiracy" claims about the U.S. Congress, or that you give those people in Congress far too much credit. To say that the tax code is intentionally obfuscated is to say that somebody has enough understanding of it to make it that way. This is plainly not the case, as many tax-related statutes are so poorly written as to require modification as soon as somebody finds the morre glaring errors and inconsistencies in them. It keeps a lot of legislators busy.

The fact is that laws are generally written by lawyers, and they like to keep their jargon in use to hopefully keep their profession employed in interpreting those laws. Unfortunately for all of us, that jargon gets pretty deep pretty fast, and even the brightest of attorneys has trouble finding some unambiguous meaning for much of current law.

Call it what you will. All I know is that the 26 USC is a maze of well crafted legaleze intent on hiding the truth from Americans. Whether written by Congress, it's Lawyers, the IRS or Tax Lawyers doesn't really matter. What matters to me is learning the truth.

For example:

26 USC Sec. 61 Subchapter B - Computation of Taxable Income PART I says:
"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: ....."

Taken at face value, this statement says that my Taxable Income is my gross income which is made up of all income regardless of where it comes from.

Would it surprise you to know that is NOT what it means?

You must first define Taxble Income.

“Sec. 63. Taxable income defined (a) In general - ...the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter...” [26 USC § 63]

Then we must define Gross Income.

“Sec. 61. Gross income defined (a) General definition - ... gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services...;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;... [more items listed]” ... [26 USC § 61]

We must then define Income.

Oops! Can't find that one anywhere. Seems Congress conveniently left the definition of Income out. Wonder why?

We'll move on anyway.

Next, we must now define the source of income.

The phrase “from whatever source derived” may initially appear allencompassing, but for the specifics about “income from sources,” the reader of the law is repeatedly referred to Section 861 and following (of the statutes) and the related regulations.

For example, in all three major printings of Title 26 (the “United States Code,” the “United States Code Annotated,” and the “United States Code Service”), Section 61 itself has crossreferences similar to the following:

Income from sources -
Within the United States, see section 861 of this title.
Without the United States, see section 862 of this title.”

Clearly 26 USC § 861 and following (which make up Part I of Subchapter N of the Code) are very relevant to determining what is considered a “source of income,” and Section 861 in particular deals within income from “sources” within the United States. (Section 862 deals within from “without” (outside) the United States.)

Find a Tax Lawyer and ask him where in Section 861 it states that your wages are taxable and he/she will either:

1. Tell you they've never heard of Section 861. Some Tax Expert.
2. Tell you that you are not supposed to use section 861 (even though 26 USC § 61 directs you to it)
3. Throw you out of his/her office becasue they don't even want to discuss it. Even though you are paying them good money for their expert help.

This is just one small example of how twisted the regulations have become.

Am I giving Congress far to much credit? Well. Someone deserves credit for creating this web of legalese.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by Stephen.S.

I do not rely on anyone to form my opinions. I form my opinions based on the facts in front of me. And I will say once again what I have been saying all along. Until the IRS or our government stands up and cites what statutes and citations require the American people to pay taxes on their wages, I am suspect of our government.

You only need to open your eyes to the simple fact that the only thing the IRS ever quotes to support their position are Tax Court Rulings. Now why is that? Why don't they just tell every American what LAW requires us to pay taxes on our wages and put this question to rest once and for all.

Instead, they spend miliions of taxpayer dollars taking these so called tax-offenders and tax-evaders to court so they can quote another court case which supports their claim. Sorry. I'm not buying it. I want to see a staute. I want to see a citation. I want to see the LAW. Not the IRS or Tax Court interpretation of it!

As for Mr. Evans. I can shoot so many holes in his claims that it's not even worth the trouble or effort to do so.

Except that Mr. Evans' Faq:

• Cites the statutes that require the American people to pay taxes on their wages
• Cites why the Tax Code has the force of law
• Cites why Federal Courts have jurisdiction over these cases
• Cites why the 16th amendment really was ratified
• All sorts of other related stuff

I even quoted the relevant parts for you for some of these, with direct citations of the law. Please take the trouble and effort to refute these claims directly. Otherwise, I will take his word over yours.