ONE MORE TIME:
IT’S ABOUT P O W E R AND C O N T R O L!!
CHECK OUT HTTP://WWW.SALESTAX.ORG to find out how you can help!
Posted on 04/15/2002 5:26:45 AM PDT by Free Fire Zone
Which statement best reflects your view of taxes and/or the IRS? Tax on income is unconstitutional 41.53% (375)
We should have a flat-tax system 23.26% (210)
Abolish the IRS, it's inefficient and dangerous 15.39% (139)
Cut tax rates bigtime, and watch revenues to government rise 9.86% (89)
I would rather see tariffs than federal income tax 6.64% (60)
Other 1.44% (13)
I wouldn't mind higher taxes if the money were used effectively 0.66% (6)
The IRS has some problems but they can be fixed 0.66% (6)
I'm satisfied with our current tax system, rates 0.33% (3)
We need to raise taxes to fund American needs 0.22% (2)
Free Fire Zone
The income tax is unconstitutional? Bull.
Amendment XVI
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.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying and probably trying to sell a book.
Instead of using tax revenue to protect our rights, government uses it to buy votes and build bureaucracies that wield the power to write arbitrary law. In other words, tax revenue is used to increase the power of the state.
brought to you by Yellowstone Net
AK Murkowski, Frank (R) email@murkowski.senate.gov AK Stevens, Ted (R) senator_stevens@stevens.senate.gov AL Sessions, Jeff (R) senator@sessions.senate.gov AL Shelby, Richard (R) senator@shelby.senate.gov AR Bumpers, Dale (D) senator@bumpers.senate.gov AR Hutchinson, Tim (R) senator.hutchinson@hutchinson.senate.gov AZ Kyl, Jon (R) info@kyl.senate.gov AZ McCain, John (R) senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov CA Boxer, Barbara (D) senator@boxer.senate.gov CA Feinstein, Dianne (D) senator@feinstein.senate.gov CO Allard, Wayne (R) http://www.senate.gov/~allard/webform.html CO Allard, Wayne (R) press secretary for Senator Allard CO Campbell, Ben (R) administrator@campbell.senate.gov CT Dodd, Christopher (D) sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov CT Lieberman, Joseph (D) senator_lieberman@lieberman.senate.gov DE Biden, Joe (D) senator@biden.senate.gov DE Roth, William (R) comments@roth.senate.gov FL Graham, Bob (D) bob_graham@graham.senate.gov FL Mack, Connie (R) connie@mack.senate.gov GA Cleland, Max (D) senator_max_cleland@cleland.senate.gov GA Cleland, Max (D) http://www.senate.gov/~cleland/webform.html GA Coverdell, Paul (R) senator_coverdell@coverdell.senate.gov HI Inouye, Daniel (D) senator@inouye.senate.gov HI Inouye, Daniel (D) http://www.senate.gov/~inouye/webform.html IA Grassley, Chuck (R) chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov IA Harkin, Tom (D) tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov IA Harkin, Tom (D) http://www.senate.gov/~harkin/webform.html ID Craig, Larry (R) larry_craig@craig.senate.gov ID Kempthorne, Dirk (R) dirk_kempthorne@kempthorne.senate.gov IL Durbin, Dick (D) dick@durbin.senate.gov IL Moseley-Braun, Carol (D) senator@moseley-braun.senate.gov IN Coats, Dan (R) administrator@coats.senate.gov IN Lugar, Richard (R) senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov IN Lugar, Richard (R) lugar@iquest.net KS Brownback, Sam (R) sam_brownback@brownback.senate.gov KS Roberts, Pat (R) pat_roberts@roberts.senate.gov KY Ford, Wendell (D) wendell_ford@ford.senate.gov KY McConnell, Mitch (R) senator@mcconnell.senate.gov LA Breaux, John (D) senator@breaux.senate.gov LA Breaux, John (D) http://www.senate.gov/~breaux/webform.html LA Landrieu, Mary (D) senator@landrieu.senate.gov MA Kennedy, Ted (D) senator@kennedy.senate.gov MA Kerry, John (D) john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov MD Mikulski, Barbara (D) senator@mikulski.senate.gov MD Sarbanes, Paul (D) senator@sarbanes.senate.gov ME Collins, Susan (R) senator@collins.senate.gov ME Snowe, Olympia (R) olympia@snowe.senate.gov MI Abraham, Spencer (R) michigan@abraham.senate.gov MI Levin, Carl (D) senator@levin.senate.gov MN Grams, Rod (R) mail_grams@grams.senate.gov MN Wellstone, Paul (D) senator@wellstone.senate.gov MO Ashcroft, John (R) john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov MO Bond, Christopher (R) kit_bond@bond.senate.gov MS Cochran, Thad (R) senator@cochran.senate.gov MS Lott, Trent (R) senatorlott@lott.senate.gov MT Baucus, Max (D) max@baucus.senate.gov MT Burns, Conrad (R) conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov NC Faircloth, Lauch (R) senator@faircloth.senate.gov NC Helms, Jesse (R) jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov NC Helms, Jesse (R) http://www.senate.gov/~helms/webform.html ND Conrad, Kent (D) senator@conrad.senate.gov ND Dorgan, Byron (D) senator@dorgan.senate.gov NE Hagel, Chuck (R) chuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov NE Kerrey, Bob (D) qmail@kerrey-cms.senate.gov NE Kerrey, Bob (D) http://www.senate.gov/~kerrey/webform.html NH Gregg, Judd (R) mailbox@gregg.senate.gov NH Smith, Bob (R) opinion@smith.senate.gov NH Smith, Bob (R) http://www.senate.gov/~smith/webform.html NJ Lautenberg, Frank (D) frank_lautenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov NJ Torricelli, Bob (D) senator_torricelli@torricelli.senate.gov NM Bingaman, Jeff (D) senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov NM Domenici, Pete (R) senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov NV Bryan, Richard (D) senator@bryan.senate.gov NV Reid, Harry (D) senator_reid@reid.senate.gov NY D'Aamato, Alfonse (R) senator_al@damato.senate.gov NY Moynihan, Daniel P (D) senator@dpm.senate.gov OH DeWine, Michael (R) senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov OH Glenn, John (D) senator_glenn@glenn.senate.gov OK Inhofe, James (R) administrator@inhofe.senate.gov OK Nickles, Don (R) senator@nickles.senate.gov OR Smith, Gordon (R) oregon@gsmith.senate.gov OR Smith, Gordon (R) http://www.senate.gov/~gsmith/webform.html OR Wyden, Ron (D) senator@wyden.senate.gov PA Santorum, Rick (R) senator@santorum.senate.gov PA Specter, Arlen (R) senator_specter@specter.senate.gov RI Chafee, John (R) senator_chafee@chafee.senate.gov RI Reed, Jack (D) jack@reed.senate.gov SC Hollings, Ernest (D) senator@hollings.senate.gov SC Thurmond, Strom (R) senator@thurmond.senate.gov SD Daschle, Thomas (D) tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov SD Johnson, Tim (D) tim@johnson.senate.gov TN Frist, Bill (R) senator_frist@frist.senate.gov TN Thompson, Fred (R) senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov TX Gramm, Phil (R) administrator@gramm.senate.gov TX Hutchison, Kay (R) senator@hutchison.senate.gov UT Bennett, Robert (R) senator@bennett.senate.gov UT Hatch, Orrin (R) senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov VA Robb, Charles (D) senator@robb.senate.gov VA Robb, Charles (D) http://www.senate.gov/~robb/webform.html VA Warner, John (R) senator@warner.senate.gov VT Jeffords, James (R) vermont@jeffords.senate.gov VT Leahy, Patrick (D) senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov WA Gorton, Slade (R) senator_gorton@gorton.senate.gov WA Murray, Patty (D) senator_murray@murray.senate.gov WI Feingold, Russell (D) senator@feingold.senate.gov WI Kohl, Herb (D) senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov WV Byrd, Robert (D) senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov WV Rockefeller, Jay (D) senator@rockefeller.senate.gov WY Enzi, Mike (R) senator@enzi.senate.gov WY Thomas, Craig (R) craig@thomas.senate.gov Special Committee on Aging mailbox@aging.senate.gov Committee on Small Business committee@small-bus.senate.gov Senate Curator's Office curator@sec.senate.gov Senate Historian's Office historian@sec.senate.gov Internet Caucus inetcauc@hr.house.gov
The argument I've heard against the IRS is that this Amendment was not properly ratified by some of the states.
I am sure that you would agree that the government over- or unequally taxes its citizens. Unconstitutionality could be based in equal protection. By subjecting one group of citizens (say, high-incomer earners) to a significantly greater tax burden could be considered discrimination. If we were to tax (fill in an ethnic group, say Hispanics) more than Whites, it would be obviously unconsitutional.
As far as equal protection is concerned, the government is clearly discriminating against high-income earners. While the amendment itself might be constitutional, the the current structure and execution of the income tax is unconstitutional.
ONE MORE TIME:
IT’S ABOUT P O W E R AND C O N T R O L!!
CHECK OUT HTTP://WWW.SALESTAX.ORG to find out how you can help!
|
Tax Notes Today IRS and Treasury Warn of Tax Scam The IRS and Treasury have issued a notice warning taxpayers that if they file returns under the theory that U.S. citizens and residents aren't subject to tax on their wages and other income earned or derived within the United States, they may be subject to penalties. FRIVOLOUS FILING POSITION BASED ON SECTION 861 =============== FULL TEXT =============== [1] The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department are aware that certain persons are promoting the view that U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to tax on their wages and other income earned or derived within the United States based on the claim that the Internal Revenue Code imposes taxes only on income derived from certain foreign-based activities. The Service and Treasury are issuing this notice to inform taxpayers that this reporting position has no basis in law. [2] The proponents of this position misread the Code and the Treasury Regulations. Although the proponents acknowledge that section 1 imposes income tax on "taxable income," that taxable income" consists of "gross income" minus deductions (section 63) and that "gross income" is income "from whatever source derived" (section 61), they assert that sections 861 through 865 of the Code and the regulations thereunder (in particular, Treasury regulation section 1.861-8) limit taxable "sources" of income to certain foreign-based activities. [3] That assertion is refuted by the express and unambiguous terms of the Code. Section 61 includes in gross income "all income from whatever source derived." As the Supreme Court stated in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429 (1955), "Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts. . . ." Nothing in sections 861 to 865 of the Code limits the gross income subject to United States taxation to foreign-source income. The rules of sections 861 through 865 have significance in determining whether income is considered from sources within the United States or without the United States, which is relevant, for example, in determining whether a U.S. citizen or resident may claim a credit for foreign taxes paid. See Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (Ct. Cl. 1982) (stating that "[t]he determination of where income is derived or 'sourced' is generally of no moment to either United States citizens or United States corporations, for such persons are subject to tax under I.R.C. section 1 and I.R.C. section 11, respectively, on their worldwide income" and that "[l]ikewise, the income of a resident alien individual is taxed under I.R.C. section 1 without regard to source"). The source rules do not operate to exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by United States persons from sources within the United States. Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136 (2000) (rejecting the claim that income was not subject to tax because it was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. sec. 1.861- 8(a)); Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40 (1995) (rejecting the claim that section 861 lists the only sources of income relevant for purposes of section 61). [4] The courts have categorically rejected contentions that U.S. citizens are not lawfully subject to Federal income tax on their income from all sources and have upheld criminal convictions of individuals who based their refusal to pay Federal income tax on such contentions. See, e.g., United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984). [5] The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department advise taxpayers that if they file returns reflecting this theory that only certain foreign-source income is taxable, they may be subject to penalties including, but not limited to, the accuracy- related penalty under section 6662 and the frivolous return penalty under section 6702. Under some circumstances, taxpayers adopting this position on tax returns may be subject to additional sanctions, including failure to file or pay penalties under section 6651 and civil fraud penalties under section 6663, and may be prosecuted for criminal violations of the tax law. In addition, practitioners advocating this position may be subject, under some circumstances, to the return preparer penalty under section 6694 or aiding and abetting penalties under section 6701, and may be prosecuted for criminal violations of the tax law. [6] The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department recognize that some taxpayers may have chosen not to file or have filed incorrect tax returns, taking the position that they were not required to report wages or other income earned in the United States for taxation. We advise these taxpayers to take prompt action to file correct returns and to comply with the tax laws. Taxpayers can obtain tax forms, including those necessary to amend previously-filed returns, via the IRS web site (http://www.irs.gov/), obtain them through the IRS' TaxFax Services (from a fax machine call: 703-368- 9694 (not a toll-free number)), or order the forms by phone: 1-800- TAX-FORM (1-800-829-3676). |
Congress has made it's position clear:
- [Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."
- [Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.
- [Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.
- [Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.
- Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.
- 26 USC 7805(a) Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - … the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…" [26 USC § 7805]Thus under amplifying Treasury regulations for 26 USC 1, 26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.
Wonder which side the Courts comes down on?
COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
- "[T]he principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and therefore has the power to make the benefit complete. Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen."
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955).
- "Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature."
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that state citizens are exempt from income tax.KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
More to the point, the government wants your money, and if you don't give it to them it has armed men who are going to take it whether or not doing so is really constitutional.
armed men who are going to take it whether or not doing so is really constitutional.
If it is constitutional, the armed men will it take anyhow. I don't see that as establishing anything at all about the nature of an income tax, other than "Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes" and to make all "laws necessary and proper" to see the power carried out.
Perhaps you can lay out your theory as to how the income tax is unconstitutional, and see how it stands up in debate.
The courts seem to hold a contrary position to that view. A strong case can be made that the income tax, (at least insofar as it addresses taxation with respect to income derived from occupations, trades, and employments) is wholly constitutional, even without the 16th amendment.
The only way I see we will ever be rid of income & payroll taxes is through the repeal of all income and payroll taxes, then their explicit prohibition by constitutional amendment to cure the problem once and for all. There is simply too much legal wiggle room as it currently stands, to sucessfully mount a case to void the income/payroll tax of today for unconstitutionality.
A good moral case can be made to end the income tax and prohibit it via constitutional amendment, However, the moral case does little to provide sufficient ammunition to declare the tax unconstitutional and make it stick.
I wasn't saying the income tax is unconstitutional. I was saying that armed men will collect it whether it's constitutional or not, rendering the point largely moot.
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.