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.
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.
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."
Just wait in line. It rotates daily.
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.
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. "
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.
Hey, if people want to flush money down the toilet, it's got to end up somewhere, right?
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.
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
- "The question presented is whether a Federal District Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1346 (a) (1) of a suit by a taxpayer for the refund of income tax payments which did not discharge the entire amount of his assessment."
- "the Government can collect the tax from a District Court suitor by exercising its power of distraint - if he does not split his cause of action - but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. A full-payment requirement will promote the smooth functioning of this system; a part-payment rule would work at cross-purposes with it.
In sum, if we were to accept petitioner's argument, we would sacrifice the harmony of our carefully structured twentieth century system of tax litigation, and all that [362 U.S. 145, 177] would be achieved would be a supposed harmony of 1346 (a) (1) with what might have been the nineteenth century law had the issue ever been raised. Reargument has but fortified our view that 1346 (a) (1), correctly construed, requires full payment of the assessment before an income tax refund suit can be maintained in a Federal District Court."
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.
rather than try to convince the courts that you don't have to pay if you don't want to.
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:
- "'[I]ncome' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:
- "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:
- "The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."
- "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "
Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:
- The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.
- "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."
- Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191
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."
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."
Which simply means that the Courts are not about to entertain the idea that wages are somehow not taxable under the "income tax statutes".
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.
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).
- "Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature."
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
- "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."
- "If that[rents from land] be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by a r the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress."
- "We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. "
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:
- The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.
- "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."
- Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.
- compensation = item of income
- in exchange for = activity
- service = source.
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)
- 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'
BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
- While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which neet not be apportioned
Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)
- An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.
Get it now?
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:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "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; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
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
- 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."
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.
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.)
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.
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:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."
- It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.
[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]
- "A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
--Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.
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).
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.