50,000 challenge in USA today - Prove Income Tax Law

[no7rosman 0]

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/


In June of 2000, the "We The People Foundation" put an add in the USA Today offering anyone $50,000 who could prove there is actually a law that states we are required to pay an income tax.

To Date nobody has been able to get the money.

Can anyone defend the Tax Law?

[dbattman 0]

Here's a start:

Now they can go look up the actual code themselves

[no7rosman 0]

That is good information and convincing for me at first...I will look into it.

If it was so easy for you to find it for me, why couldn't they supply it in this court case?
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=111

In the video Freedom To Facism there is an interview with Sheldon Cohen who is the Former IRS Commisioner and he could not provide this information either. In fact they show a video where they are asking Congress for the law and they cannot provide it.

I will look into your link...It is interesting

[dbattman 0]

Quote

That is good information and convincing for me at first...I will look into it.

If it was so easy for you to find it for me, why couldn't they supply it in this court case?
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=111

In the video Freedom To Facism there is an interview with Sheldon Cohen who is the Former IRS Commisioner and he could not provide this information either. In fact they show a video where they are asking Congress for the law and they cannot provide it.

I will look into your link...It is interesting

Probably because it's government.

And apologies- the reply probably came off as a bit of a snub at you and it wasn't intended that way. More of a flippant reply off to the anti-tax conspiracy 'wages aren't income' and 'money is a treasury note not taxable' crowd.

Geez- am I bored. I need to shut this down and quit PWing.

[lawrocket 3]

Ooooh! Ooooh! Mister Kot-TAIR!!!

How about Article I, section 8, CLause 1, which states, "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;"

Not enough, Mister Kot-TAIR? How about the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913.

Quote

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Oh, yeah. This modified Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, which read, "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Yawn. I'll take my 50 grand now...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[no7rosman 0]

Not sure if you are interested, but here is a recent radio show where a guy argues this point with a Tax Lawyer.

If you listen to it have the laws in front of you...it helps.

http://www.petermacshow.com/content/view/12/38/


The person who says Income Tax is illegal is asking a Tax Lawyer the following 6 questions. I think the radio show said they had these questions posted for two years asking any Tax Lawyer to get on the show and answer the questions.

1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b), and the related regulations beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8, to determine my taxable domestic income?

2) If some individuals—including myself—should not use those sections for determining their taxable domestic income, please show me where the regulations say who should or should not use those sections for that.

** Reason for first two questions: The regulations under 26 USC § 861(b) (26 CFR § 1.861-8 and following) begin by stating that Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms “how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States” after gross income from the U.S. has been determined. (The regulations then say that Sections 862(b) and 863(a) describe how to determine taxable income from outside of the U.S.) Section 1.861-1(a)(1) of the regulations confirms that “taxable income from sources within the United States” is to be determined in accordance with the rules of 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8. (See also 26 CFR §§ 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c).)

3) If a U.S. citizen lives and works exclusively within the 50 states, and receives all of his income from within the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show such income to be taxable?

** Reason for question: Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921, statutory predecessor of 26 USC § 861 and following, stated that income from within the U.S. was taxable for foreigners and for U.S. citizens and corporations deriving most of their income from federal possessions (but did not say the same about the domestic income of most Americans). The regulations under the equivalent section of the 1939 Code (e.g. §§ 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9, 29.119-10 (1945)) showed the same thing. The current regulations at 1.861-8 still show income to be taxable only when derived from certain “specific sources and activities,” which, concerning domestic income, still relate only to foreigners and certain Americans receiving income from federal possessions (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4), 1.861-8(f)(1)).

4) Should one refer to 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether the “items” of income he receives (such as compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?

** Reason for question: The regulations (26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(3)) state that a “class of gross income” consists of the “items” of income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, etc.). The regulations (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(b)(1)) then direct the reader to “paragraph (d)(2)” of the section, which provides that such “classes of gross income” may include some income which is excluded for federal income tax purposes.

5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the income of the average American not on that list?

** Reason for question: After defining “exempt income” to mean income which is exempt, eliminated, or excluded for federal income tax purposes (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)), the regulations give a list of types of income which are not exempt (i.e. which are subject to tax), which includes the domestic income of foreigners, certain foreign income of Americans, income of certain possessions corporations, and income of international and foreign sales corporations, but which does not include the domestic income of the average American (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)).

6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject to the federal income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?

** Reason for question: Older income tax regulations defining “gross income” and “net income” said that neither income exempted by statute “or fundamental law” were subject to the tax (§ 39.21-1 (1956)), and said that in addition to those types of income exempted by statute, other types of income were exempt because they were, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government” (§ 39.22(b)-1 (1956)).

[cumplidor 0]

sheesh, makes my head hurt. to many of those squiggly things...

[Gravitymaster 0]

Funny how all these tax protestors who claim Income Taxes are illegal end up in jail isn't. Wonder why the ACLU hasn't jumped on this bandwagon?

-

[lawrocket 3]

Well, it appears that I have demonstrated the legality of taxes. How it applies is entirely different...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[watchdog2 0]

Quote

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/


In June of 2000, the "We The People Foundation" put an add in the USA Today offering anyone $50,000 who could prove there is actually a law that states we are required to pay an income tax.

To Date nobody has been able to get the money.

Can anyone defend the Tax Law?

OH what about speed limit signs?? DID YOU KNOW...that speed limit signs ONLY apply to commercial, NOT PRIVATE vehicles??

Go spend a day at the library in the traffic laws and look it up...

And YES...the Income Tax Law is bullshit.

[billvon 2,990]

>DID YOU KNOW...that speed limit signs ONLY apply to commercial,
>NOT PRIVATE vehicles??

I'd love to see the ensuing argument with the cop.

[labrys 0]

Quote

OH what about speed limit signs?? DID YOU KNOW...that speed limit signs ONLY apply to commercial, NOT PRIVATE vehicles??

Jeez, what horseshit.

In Ohio, drivers are required to know the speed limits for different types of roads regardless of whether or not there's a posted sign.

Even if the signs are there so that interstate drivers would know the local limits, it doesn't matter what the signs say and they always match the legal limits anyway. It's a mute point.

Owned by Remi #?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's a mute point.

I still get confused on that.

is it "mute" point
or "moot" point

Edit: It turns out it is "malamute" point

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nanook 1]

Quote

The person who says Income Tax is illegal is asking a Tax Lawyer the following 6 questions. I think the radio show said they had these questions posted for two years asking any Tax Lawyer to get on the show and answer the questions.

Ok:

Question 1. Answer is no. Use a 1040. In his case, a 1040EZ
Best way to look at this is: 26USC 861 thru 863 are General info. 26 CFR 1.861-8 and it's Temporary brethren 1.861.8T are more in-depth. The first half of the CFR talks about how it relates to 861 to 863. They do not source eachother in a loop.

question 2. Everyone uses this. IRS and Dept of Treasury lists these regulations numerically and purpose.

Question 3. Yes. part a talks about what is taxable, part B talks about what is deductable and what to do with the remainder.

question 4. If the reader gets confused with the back-and-forth of regulations, maybe he or she needs to read PUB-17, not the regulations themselves, especially those "T"'s that are in a middle of being implemented.

Question 5. It's considered directed at the individual taxpayer because that whole subset is under the header "apportion based on assets" where it talks about an individual taxpayers responsibility of apportioning interest expenses on basis of assets.

Got bored by question 6.

You can't argue all this on radio in real time.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[labrys 0]

Quote

I still get confused on that.

is it "mute" point
or "moot" point

Edit: It turns out it is "malamute" point

Yeah, it's "moot"

I get all hot-headed and shit and don't pay attention to detail.

Owned by Remi #?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

I still get confused on that.

is it "mute" point
or "moot" point

Edit: It turns out it is "malamute" point

Yeah, it's "moot"

Which is not to be confused with "yoot" or yute, as in

Is it possible, the two "yutes"...
Eh, two what?... What was that word?
Ah, what word?
Two what?
What?
Did you say "yutes"?
Yeah, two "yutes".
What is a "yute"?
Oh, excuse me your honor, two "youths"."

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Not enough, Mister Kot-TAIR? How about the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913.

I think that part of the argument is that the 16th was never properly ratified by the required 3/4 yet Philander Knox declared it as such. I haven't read up on this in a while but I do know some folks who dug pretty deeply into it. I think they've given up due to frustration with their interaction with the government agencies, not because they ever found anything to dispute the "We the People" claim. Interestingly, I heard an interview on NPR between Diane Rehm and an IRS representative a few years ago. Apparently a caller got through and told them both about the $50K and that he had not had to pay his taxes in about five years. The he asked the IRS dude why he didn't simply clear up the mystery and claim the money for himself. They cut off the caller and Diane said that he should probably look into paying those back taxes. I thought the non response was interesting.

[watchdog2 0]

Quote

>DID YOU KNOW...that speed limit signs ONLY apply to commercial,
>NOT PRIVATE vehicles??

I'd love to see the ensuing argument with the cop.

I would NEVER win cause the cop has the authority AND he's IGNORANT as hell as well!!

[labrys 0]

Quote

The he asked the IRS dude why he didn't simply clear up the mystery and claim the money for himself.

The way I understand it, no one has been able to claim the money because the guy offering the money stipulates within his offer that he alone can determine whether or not the information he's givin is valid.

In other words, all he has to do is say "I don't accept your proof" and he's off the hook.

Owned by Remi #?

[watchdog2 0]

Quote

Quote

OH what about speed limit signs?? DID YOU KNOW...that speed limit signs ONLY apply to commercial, NOT PRIVATE vehicles??

Jeez, what horseshit.

In Ohio, drivers are required to know the speed limits for different types of roads regardless of whether or not there's a posted sign.

Even if the signs are there so that interstate drivers would know the local limits, it doesn't matter what the signs say and they always match the legal limits anyway. It's a mute point.

DUDE I am telling you, go to the library, spend about 6 hours in the library and look for yourself!! It's in there!! You have to really know the definitions of everything you read as well, like the definition of "road" and "driver"...on an on..its confusing as HELL and totally designed to make any person determined enough to give up.

Bro, this world is NOT what we think it is. MY BIGGEST FEAR, is that the TRUTH is staring at everyone's faces all the time, but we are all brainwashed to believe and think that it is not possible or allowed to happeen.

Take the Buck Act of 1933...when we lost all our personal liberties...WHY do you think we ALL have to be certified to do ANYTHING? Cause WE (meaning you and I) are considered ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES!!! That acr (I think it was the Buck Act...)....was initially designed towards anyone with German descent, THEN is was modified to include everyone.

[labrys 0]

Quote

DUDE I am telling you, go to the library, spend about 6 hours in the library and look for yourself!! It's in there!! You have to really know the definitions of everything you read as well, like the definition of "road" and "driver"...on an on..its confusing as HELL and totally designed to make any person determined enough to give up.

Bro, this world is NOT what we think it is. MY BIGGEST FEAR, is that the TRUTH is staring at everyone's faces all the time, but we are all brainwashed to believe and think that it is not possible or allowed to happeen.

And I'm saying "Dude, relax. Go to Nexus Lexus and spend about 5 minutes looking up some traffic laws. It's in there, including the intended definitions of road, car and driver as they pertain to the law"

Your world might not be what you think it is, but my world is exactly what I think it is. No disrepect if you feel that someone is out to control your life and you want to protect yourself, it's just that I feel that I have control and I'm not inclined to worry about whether or not I actually have to follow posted speed limit signs because they are part some government consiracy to restrict my freedom.

Owned by Remi #?

[AndyBoyd 0]

Refusing to pay your taxes is a really bad idea, people. You will almost certainly get caught, and at a minimum, you will be forced to pay back taxes, with penalties. At the worst, you will be prosecuted by the federal government, and you will then be looking at potential prison time or, at least, a hefty fine. I'm not familiar with the case linked to in one of the above posts, but it looks like the lawyer may have done some fancy footwork, and convinced the government to drop the charges. That's great for this particular defendant, but not likely to happen very often. I'm no tax expert, but I am a lawyer, and I work for a federal judge. I've seen tax protesters prosecuted, and they uniformly lose. I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else. And it's fine to have a theoretical debate about whether or not the law actually, specifically, requires one to pay income tax. But the reality is that if you don't pay your taxes, the government will catch up with you sooner or later. And you won't like it when that happens. Pay your taxes, folks. Just a bit of friendly legal advice.

• Quote

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I'm no tax expert, but I am a lawyer, and I work for a federal judge. I've seen tax protesters prosecuted, and they uniformly lose.

Ever heard of a case where an innocent defendant was declared guilty? Of course not, that could NEVER happen

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I still get confused on that.

is it "mute" point
or "moot" point

Edit: It turns out it is "malamute" point

I like Joey's version "It's a MOO point, ya know like a cows opinion...It's MOO. It does not matter."

[NewGuy2005 53]

Poot point?