Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tax-evasion teacher convicted (U.S. income tax is voluntary, man says)
The Associated Press | Article published Feb 13, 2004 | By KATHY MCCORMACK

Posted on 02/13/2004 1:23:11 PM PST by Jim Robinson

Article published Feb 13, 2004 Manchester

Tax-evasion teacher convicted

U.S. income tax is voluntary, man says

By KATHY MCCORMACK

The Associated Press

A tax preparer who ran hotel seminars designed to teach people how to avoid paying federal income taxes was convicted yesterday of multiple counts of preparing false returns.

Steven Swan of Manchester was convicted in U.S. District Court in Concord on 15 counts of preparing false tax returns and amended returns, two counts of preparing false amended returns for himself and one count of corruptly impeding the administration of the federal tax laws. He faces three years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for each count - up to 54 years and $4.5 million.

Swan, who was released in his own custody, is scheduled to be sentenced on May 19.

Prosecutors said that from 1997 to 2002, Swan, 51, prepared more than 200 so-called "zero-income"tax returns for clients, making false claims for refunds of more than $1 million. Swan, who represented himself at trial, did not dispute the government's case. He testified that he was a former disciple of tax protester Irwin Schiff, who wrote The Federal Mafia: How It Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes.

Swan said he met Schiff in New Hampshire in 1995, when Schiff was campaigning in the '96 presidential primary as a Libertarian. He bought Schiff's books and studied his material. "I believed in Schiff's information so much that I began disseminating his information to others myself," Swan said in a court document.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: convicted; irs; irwinschiff; stevenswan; taxprotester; taxreform
Received via email from Steven Swan
1 posted on 02/13/2004 1:23:12 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Prosecutors said that from 1997 to 2002, Swan, 51, prepared more than 200 so-called "zero-income"tax returns for clients, making false claims for refunds of more than $1 million.

How does this work? How do you get a refund on zero income?

2 posted on 02/13/2004 1:39:58 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Someone tell this moron about the 16th amendment...sheesh.
3 posted on 02/13/2004 1:48:06 PM PST by Keith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
I don't know, but apparently, it doesn't work very well.
4 posted on 02/13/2004 1:57:57 PM PST by Jim Robinson (I don't belong to no organized political party. I'm a Republycan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Keith
The 16th Amendment was never ratified by the states.
5 posted on 02/13/2004 2:03:26 PM PST by ServesURight (FReecerely Yours,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
LOL, yeah, I suppose you're right.
6 posted on 02/13/2004 2:04:01 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Keith
As I understand it, that the 16th amendment was properly ratified is in some doubt, and while it is commonly accepted as law, that doesn't de-legitimize the arguments of those that point this out. There is also some questions about whether the 16th amendment, as interpreted now, means what the authors meant.

None of this means that I am going to stop paying taxes on these grounds anytime soon, but it is telling to point out that often improper and subtle ways are used to enslave the people (re-interpretation, abuse of procedural vagaries or outright ram-rodding, etc...) That this guy has the balls to risk almost certain punishment by the state to expose a shadily conceived law is commendable. Radical reform often requires radical measures.
7 posted on 02/13/2004 2:05:50 PM PST by Abe Froman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son; Jim Robinson
I believe the basis for this is that they received no "taxable" income, under their (possibly correct??) interpretation, and as such, all their withholdings would be returned to them.
8 posted on 02/13/2004 2:07:48 PM PST by Abe Froman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: *Taxreform; ancient_geezer
Tax reform bump
9 posted on 02/13/2004 2:09:36 PM PST by kevkrom (Ask your Congresscritter about his or her stance on HR 25 -- the NRST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman; Jim Robinson
As I understand it, that the 16th amendment was properly ratified is in some doubt, and while it is commonly accepted as law, that doesn't de-legitimize the arguments of those that point this out.

However, the courts have long held (from well before the 16th Amendment) that disputes about the ratification status of any Constitutional Amendment are political affairs, to be resolved by the Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the several states.

And that's a good thing, IMNHO, because the ratification record of the Bill of Rights is extremely poorly maintained. Do you really want the 9th Circuit deciding that the 2nd Amendment doesn't even exist?

10 posted on 02/13/2004 2:14:12 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
Ok, that makes sense- sort of. But if you're using the legal tax form to fill out your return, how do you itemize your deductions in a way that works out to you having zero income? I mean if you use the correct legal method, it works out to what it works out to and you either owe more taxes, none at all or you get some of what you paid back. But if that's the case, it's all legit. How do you use the tax form in such a way to say I made $50,000 but I claim I made nothing in taxable income?

For me, it would be one thing to never claim any income at all (regardless of whether you did or not)- but then you wouldn't get a refund either. But to claim you DID make the money and you invent a deduction, this is just fraud. I mean, you're lying and signing your name to it.

Seems a better dodge to just try to hide your income in the first place. If you go telling the IRS "I made X amount but I just aint going to pay you" you're just asking for trouble. They know you made the money because you just told them.

I can't figure out how this dodge was supposed to work.
11 posted on 02/13/2004 2:14:58 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
How does this work? How do you get a refund on zero income?

If you have "regular" job, you claim all your income as non-taxable (a la Schiff) and get the refund equal to the amount withheld for the year.

12 posted on 02/13/2004 2:38:27 PM PST by Grit (http://www.NRSC.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grit
Ok, but what deduction scheme are you using? If you're using a real deduction then it's legal. If you're making one up- you're just asking for trouble.
13 posted on 02/13/2004 2:39:34 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
"I can't figure out how this dodge was supposed to work."


I think it is supposed to work on the principle that working for an hourly wage is not taxable because no income was receive. Income being a profit. If you work for someone they agree to pay you for the time worked, which is a compensation for your labor. Where is the profit? Now, if you work and make something and sell it for more than the cost of production, then you have received an income.
14 posted on 02/13/2004 2:44:35 PM PST by Chewbacca (I want to be Emperor of Mars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
It's based on withholding. Obviously if they're withholding your money, yet none of your income is taxable, then it should all be returned. I've skimmed over a couple of the tax-protest sites and it appears that the argument is over some language that defines what taxable income is, and the protesters claim (IIRC) that it means only foreign income or something.
15 posted on 02/13/2004 2:47:46 PM PST by Abe Froman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I'm not aware of any dispute about the ratification of the 2nd amendment. I will say this---who would be more interesting in continuing the sham, if there was one; the courts, or the legislature/s that originally ramrodded a false ratification? They're the ones who want to get their hands on the money anyway.

With regard to the Bill of Rights in general----we get back to Jefferson's argument that they weren't neccessary, those people's rights are inherent in the Constitution by virtue of the lack of any power listed by the constitution to regulate them. Of course that leaves the door wide open to state governments to regulate them. In short, just because the 9th circuit decides that there's no 2nd amendment doesn't mean the right doesn't exist, so theoretically, it wouldn't matter what they ruled. Of course they should be impeached for usurpation when it happens too.
16 posted on 02/13/2004 2:55:25 PM PST by Abe Froman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Of course this is the principle reason that withholding should be abolished. Frankly I think government has to right to know how much money anyone makes, and by extention, tax them proportionally. That information should be proprietary to the earner.
17 posted on 02/13/2004 2:58:27 PM PST by Abe Froman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
I'm not aware of any dispute about the ratification of the 2nd amendment.

There isn't--but the record-keeping deficiencies identified in The Law That Never Was are applicable to the 2nd Amendment's ratification paperwork--in spades.

I will say this---who would be more interesting in continuing the sham, if there was one; the courts, or the legislature/s that originally ramrodded a false ratification?

If the legislatures actually wanted to ratify the thing, they wouldn't need to submit "false ratifications."

If they had NOT intended to ratify the amendment, they had more than enough opportunity to tell Mr. Knox that they had not done so.

18 posted on 02/13/2004 3:00:11 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
U.S. income tax is voluntary, man says

He's in for a surprise.

19 posted on 02/13/2004 3:10:01 PM PST by MegaSilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I am not very knowledgeable about this subject but isn't the claim of improper ratification dependent on the lack of state ratification which is disputed by the federal government? So wouldn't it not matter that the state governments didn't respond? Their lack of response is lack of ratification, not proof that they are OK with it.
20 posted on 02/13/2004 3:11:49 PM PST by Abe Froman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
I think government has to right to know how much money anyone makes, and by extention, tax them proportionally.

I'm assuming you meant "the government has NO right..."

I agree with that. 100% I don't think the gov't has any right to know that.

It just seems to me though that if you put this info down on a legal tax document, sign your name to it and send it off to the IRS, you're agreeing to play the game by their rules. If you put down 'I earned $50,000' you just told them your income. All the deductions from that point have to be legal ones. Otherwise, you're knowingly commiting some sort of fraud and they can nail you because you told them how much you made.

Now, if you told them you made $0.00 then they'd have to go and prove you actually did have an income. It just seems to me if you list any income at all, you're giving them all the evidence they need to bust you.

21 posted on 02/13/2004 3:15:46 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
You're probably right on all that but if your objective is to simply deprive them of any information on your income, obviously you need to stop having them withhold money from your checks---which is usually out of your control. Once they receive the withholding, the game is up---they know you're making money, and the amount withheld is usually proportional to a rough estimation of your total income (pursuant to the amount of deductions you claim on your (w-2). So, the protesters are relegated to using this other argument to claim that none of their income is taxable.
22 posted on 02/13/2004 3:25:44 PM PST by Abe Froman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
I am not very knowledgeable about this subject but isn't the claim of improper ratification dependent on the lack of state ratification which is disputed by the federal government?

That's the problem. The states DID intend to ratify the amendment. The "improper ratification" claims made by Banister et al revolve around very minor imperfections (or claimed imperfections) of procedure--different typographical errors in different journals, et cetera. Do remember that this before the days of the Xerox machine, so copies of journal documents were done up either by fat-fingering them on a typewriter or copying them out by hand. In each case, there was a ratification vote on the 16th Amendment, and the legislature in each case ratified the amendment.

So wouldn't it not matter that the state governments didn't respond? Their lack of response is lack of ratification, not proof that they are OK with it.

The ratification instruments were sent to Washington, and are in the NARA archives, where you can go view them yourself.

At no point after the ratification instruments arrived did any state--or any member of a state legislature, for that matter--say, "Uh, hang on, we have a wee bit of a problem and sent you a ratification document that was invalid, and improperly conveyed our intent."

23 posted on 02/13/2004 3:25:54 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Chewbacca
***I want to be Emperor of Mars***

Just wait in line. It rotates daily.

24 posted on 02/13/2004 3:29:29 PM PST by martian_22 (Who tells you what you are?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Chewbacca
Income being a profit. If you work for someone they agree to pay you for the time worked, which is a compensation for your labor. Where is the profit?

Joe expends one hour (from his finite allotment of hours) flipping burgers in return for $5.15.

If Joe sat on his couch watching TV for an hour, or went to the library and read a book for that hour, he would still spend that hour from his finite allotment thereof--and get $0.00.

So Joe's profit, in this example, is $5.15.

25 posted on 02/13/2004 3:36:14 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"Do you really want the 9th Circuit deciding that the 2nd Amendment doesn't even exist?

Look what they have already decided ---

Quote from case --"We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. We conclude that Hickman can show no legal injury, and therefore lacks standing to bring this action. "

Hickman v. Block

26 posted on 02/13/2004 3:40:56 PM PST by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
obviously you need to stop having them withhold money from your checks---which is usually out of your control. Once they receive the withholding, the game is up

Yep. The best thing you can do is not have a witholding situation. Living in another country helps as well. Been a long time since I had to provide my social security number for anything- except that yearly tax form.

27 posted on 02/13/2004 3:47:03 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
The federal and state governments dirty little secret is how much they scoop in from "legalized gambling" on lottery winnings. The huge amounts of cash taken in from country wide lottery wins must make taxes on a working man look like chicken feed. How much does the federal government take in each year from the winners? There must be a figure for states and the feds? Some of these winners fork over 30 or 40 million to Washington.
28 posted on 02/13/2004 3:54:56 PM PST by oldironsides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oldironsides
The federal and state governments dirty little secret is how much they scoop in from "legalized gambling" on lottery winnings. The huge amounts of cash taken in from country wide lottery wins must make taxes on a working man look like chicken feed.

Hey, if people want to flush money down the toilet, it's got to end up somewhere, right?

29 posted on 02/13/2004 3:57:08 PM PST by MegaSilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: oldironsides
The federal and state governments dirty little secret is how much they scoop in from "legalized gambling" on lottery winnings. The huge amounts of cash taken in from country wide lottery wins must make taxes on a working man look like chicken feed.

Actually, they don't.

How much does the federal government take in each year from the winners?

Very little.

There are very few lottery winners to tax, but there are a bunch of working stiffs to tax.

There must be a figure for states and the feds? Some of these winners fork over 30 or 40 million to Washington.

Yes. And for every one who forks over that kind of money, there are a million people who fork over two to three thousand dollars apiece.

30 posted on 02/13/2004 3:57:39 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

He testified that he was a former disciple of tax protester Irwin Schiff, who wrote The Federal Mafia: How It Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes.

Irwin Schiff may convince some, unfortunately he fails to convince where it counts.

 

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.

U.S. income tax is voluntary, man says

LOL, a belief taken from the misrepresentation of:

Flora vs U.S.(1960), 362. U.S. 145, and on pg. 176

In short the action of distraint, is requirement by court action to force payment. Of course our system relies on people meeting their financial obligations without compelling them to pay through perpetual civil suits any more than such is required to pay a debt for goods or service in a store. The payment is however obligatatory in either case. Suit and distraint in either case are only necessary when people evade their financial obligations to report and pay.

You want to not pay the national income tax, it would be much better to repeal them outright:

 

H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

S.1493
Sponsor: Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] (introduced 7/30/2003)
Title: A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

rather than try to convince the courts that you don't have to pay if you don't want to.

31 posted on 02/13/2004 5:25:26 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath a guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chewbacca; Prodigal Son; Abe Froman

I think it is supposed to work on the principle that working for an hourly wage is not taxable because no income was receive. Income being a profit.

Doesn't fly in the courts, as the definition of "profit" and "income" depend on the definition of such just prior to the implementation of the first tax on income. Which are based on the concept of benefit derived not business profit.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

INCOME.
The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals;

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

GAIN.
The word is used as synonymous with profits.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

PROFITS.
In general, by this term is understood the benefit which a man derives from a thing. It is more particularly applied to such benefit as arises from his labor and skill

 

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

  • "The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."
  • "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."
  • "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."
  • And for the modern income tax, post 16th amendment:

     

    Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:

    Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:

    Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:

    Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:

    House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

    Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955).

    Which simply means that the Courts are not about to entertain the idea that wages are somehow not taxable under the "income tax statutes".

    32 posted on 02/13/2004 5:38:07 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath a guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer; Chewbacca; Prodigal Son; Poohbah
    Well I guess that settles that. LOL I do have one thing to point out though:

    House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

    "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."


    By this logic then, since income is not the subject of the tax, what is? It's an "excise" tax on "certain activities and privelidges"? Really? What activities and privelidges? It would seem to be essentially undefined, or merely defined as a tax one must pay as a result of being a U.S. citizen. Theoretically, since income is merely the basis for determining the amount of tax, there's no particular reason why that basis must be used as opposed to some other basis, and it creates a situation where the citizen, by definition, simply "owes" the government by virtue of being a citizen. Whether the citizen has any ability to pay the tax, or any case upon which to bring to prove that the tax is immoral or illegal is irrelevant.

    Interesting that government invests itself with the ability to simply declare that people "owe", with no respect to how much, or what the tax is used for, or any other factor whatsoever. That, frankly, is bunk.
    33 posted on 02/17/2004 9:54:49 AM PST by Abe Froman
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

    To: Abe Froman
    Interesting that government invests itself with the ability to simply declare that people "owe", with no respect to how much, or what the tax is used for, or any other factor whatsoever. That, frankly, is bunk.

    You can only abuse the people so much until they revolt, at which point, there is no going back. I think CFR during this election may actually spark a revolt.

    34 posted on 02/17/2004 9:57:10 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

    To: Abe Froman

    By this logic then, since income is not the subject of the tax, what is? It's an "excise" tax on "certain activities and privelidges"? Really? What activities and privelidges?

     

    Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955).

    POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

    Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.

    16. The injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting it. It takes invested wealth, and reads it into the constitution as a favored and protected class of property, which cannot be taxed without apportionment, while it leaves the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic, and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a people must depend, subject to taxation without that condition.

    Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:

     


     

    A LAW DICTIONARY
    by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

    WAGES,
    contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.

    A tax levied as an excise or duty on an activity of commerce.

    A LAW DICTIONARY
    by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

    WAGES,
    contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.

    KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

    BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

    Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)

     


     

    Get it now?

    35 posted on 02/17/2004 10:10:47 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

    To: Abe Froman

    Interesting that government invests itself with the ability to simply declare that people "owe", with no respect to how much, or what the tax is used for, or any other factor whatsoever. That, frankly, is bunk.

    Constitution for the United States of America:

     

    You don't like what Congress is doing? The Courts have made it clear as to how to handle that as well:

     

    Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

  • "The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."
  • "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."
  • "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."
  • "If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
    The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government.
    "
  •  

    Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321

     

    Instead of ranting, and raising bogus issues not about to change anything, some are actually trying to do something about it:

    John Linder in the House & Saxby Chambliss Senate, offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a pure consumption tax:

    H.R.25
    SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
    A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

    S.1493
    Sponsor: Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] (introduced 7/30/2003)
    Title: A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

    Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

    So Ron Paul's amendment has a chance at enactment & ratification:

    H.J.RES.15
    Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/28/2003)
    Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

    (But lets modified it to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR25 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)

    36 posted on 02/17/2004 10:18:12 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Holy buckets you're a bit #1) legalistic and #2) antagonistic, aren't you.....but as long as you want to pick a beef with me, then I'll say that as Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says:

    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;

    If the tax receipts are not obviously being used for these purposes, the tax is de facto unconstitutional. If the courts choose to misinterpret the plain language in this article that is of no consequence to my argument. The principle still stands.

    That being said, it follows that no social program fits under the definition of the "debt", "common defense", or "general welfare", per the rest of the language of the Constitution.
    37 posted on 02/17/2004 11:36:24 AM PST by Abe Froman
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

    To: Abe Froman

    no social program fits under the definition of the "debt"

    Ahh, so you do not intend to pay any tax for the lack of discipline on the part of the electorate. Love to see you push that through the Courts.

    Debt for Defence, does fit the proper limitations. And the dominant portions of the $6Trillion we owe today on the National Debt, came primarily from Defense and other constitutional related expenditures.

    However money and the general revenues are fungible, any expenditure under the the enumerated powers, which limits and defines the "General Welfare;", are covered.

    Whether or not a program is unconstitutional does not relieve the nation from paying the debts and expenditure it obligates itself to.

    You want to get rid of extra-constitutional programs, so do I. Tax law is not the route however that just gives em an excuse to create more debt to pay with taxes.

    General Bill's and appropriations measures, and sometimes the Court is how to deal with unconstitutional programs.

    It is up to the electorate when all else fails to control the proclivities of Congress Critters.

    38 posted on 02/17/2004 11:53:49 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

    To: Abe Froman

    Holy buckets you're a bit #1) legalistic and #2) antagonistic, aren't you.....

    Neither actually, just letting you know that the arguments against income taxes have already been heard ad infinitum in the Courts and throughout many generations and long settled. They aren't going anywhere useful except to put alot of folks into severe legal jeopardy when they try to play those games with the courts.

    You want changes, then work to repeal income/payroll tax system, and replace it with a system more inline with the Constitution's authors had in mind. The rest will come in due time.

    First look at what was expected from the beginnings:

     

    Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

    Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

    [Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]

    Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, said it best in Federalist Papers #21 when he stated:

    "Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "

    and in the same Federalist Paper he also noted:

    "It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption
    that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.

    They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without
    defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue.

    When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty
    that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four."

    If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection
    is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when
    they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.

    This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the
    citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of
    the power of imposing them
    .

    Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect
    taxes,
    and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue
    raised in this country.
    " (Emphasis added).


    39 posted on 02/17/2004 12:08:40 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    If our rights, and government under law (the constitution) and not of man, are up for popular vote of the electorate, then they are free to be done away with at will be the electorate. Only appeal to the unchangeable (except for amendment) will restore the republic to the constitutional box from whence it escaped. Perhaps a particular president or group of representatives could help that along, but unless it is determined at some time in the future that Constitutional dictates will be restored and once again unremoveable by popular vote, we will end up losing the battle again just as surely as it was won.
    40 posted on 02/17/2004 12:16:00 PM PST by Abe Froman
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

    To: Prodigal Son
    Poor guy...and we all suffer because of that "for the public good" insertion.
    41 posted on 02/17/2004 12:21:13 PM PST by Libertina (A girl in the "hand" is worth 5 false guard stories pinned on Bush.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

    To: Abe Froman
    Jefferson never believed that a BoR was unnecessary you are confusing him with Madison and Hamilton.

    Nor can judges be rightfully impeached for making wrong decisions without evidence indicating "bad behavior." Impeachment is a far too serious thing to be used in such a manner.
    42 posted on 02/17/2004 12:33:18 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

    To: Abe Froman

    If our rights, and government under law (the constitution) and not of man, are up for popular vote of the electorate, then they are free to be done away with at will be the electorate.

    Ask yourself what in reality is happening, our Constitution and way of government were predicated on certain characteristics of our electorate being fulfilled:

    “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

    “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not by religions, but by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Patrick Henry

    It is only on that predicate that government under law, not man can be said to exist. Once that is broken, man predominates, and only man is responsible to correct the error.

    Representation in this Republic arises from the electorate and can only be put right by the electorate, while maintaining the forms of the Constitution to ultimately restore the spirit of the Constitution.

    But the electorate must heal and become that "moral and religious people" on which the Constitution and its authority rests.

    In the mean we do the best we may towards that end, by persuasion and reason and raising our families in a moral tradition. Then through office holding, the ballot and the jury we may someday return to the vision of the founders of this Constitutional republic.

    That is not something that is going to happen over night. But some steps are possible now, and one is to return to the forms and methods of taxation that encourage individual liberty, financial privacy of the individual, and knowledge of the costs of government vs its largess before all citizen's view.

    A tax at the retail level replacing all other federal taxes is one step in that direction. It however is only one step, there are many more to be achieved before we return to our roots and the vision of the founders.

    43 posted on 02/17/2004 12:36:12 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

    To: Libertina
    What is a 'for the public good' insertion? It's been a long time since I actually filled out a tax form myself. I'm not familiar with this one.
    44 posted on 02/17/2004 12:50:39 PM PST by Prodigal Son
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

    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.

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article

    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson