Posted on 04/13/2007 1:08:43 PM PDT by SmithL
I just saw that on my paperwork. LOL!
Oh, right, he said it didn't have a number, then he said it didn't have a valid number. LOL!
I love how he keeps dancing. Has he claimed yet that the 16th Amendment was never really ratified? I love that one.
Point to it.
We're pointing at your head.
Yeah, I've been waiting for him to dredge up some of that special Bill Benson Baloney to add to his succession of lame tax protester dead-cat "arguments." Maybe Rose's 861 garbage is next.
Or, maybe he's done embarrassing himself. Probably not, tax protester Kool-Aid drinkers never seem to be able to let go of their delusions, no matter how massive the evidence against them.
Fair Tax (H.R. 25/ S. 1025). Currently more than 57 cosponsors.
http://linder.house.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Resources.Home&Resource_id=1
It starts by understanding why the current system is unconstitutional and how it was snuck in real slow. The Russo film is a high quality film with extremely credible people in it including Ron Paul, Professors of Constitutional Law, former IRS agents, FBI agents, former Assistant Secretaries of Housing, reputable authors and social policy experts. These people are not kooks as the detractors in this thread would try to make people believe.
Here’s Russo’s film:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
You have nothing to lose by watching it. Others on FR have watched it and came back to say it appeared legit to them. Many have said it was a big eye-opener.
So the first thing to do is watch the film, then take your time to digest what it shows you and verify over time through self-study whether it is truly legit or not.
This is a new movement and this is the ground floor of it. The goal is not to convince people that they don’t have to pay taxes, they do. The goal is to pay taxes in a Constitutional way which is the Fair Tax and get the IRS out of the private lives of Americans. That’s the goal.
We can’t get rid of the IRS because our government will always need a revenue collector. But under the Fair Tax the Civil Service under the IRS will be cut by more than 70% because the tax code will be vastly simplified.
Right now there is a group of high powered lawyers that is kicking the IRS’s tail in court. And that was just last year. They have filled their schedules for the next years to kick them again and again. Right now IRS is trying to suppress the info of these cases so they don’t get publicized. But it won’t work because like Glasnost there follows Perestroika, meaning people will start to see it in news and commentary in the near future and demand reform. You are seeing just a little skirmish here.
As you can see the aggressive supporters of the current IRS enforcement system on American individuals are on this thread right now working around the clock to discredit people and discourage others from seeing this film.
The Russo film is a unifying film. It’s not a wacked up ‘Fahrenheit 911’. It unites people across the spectrum. Although it talks about people that are nonfilers, it is not about that. It’s about the law and fraud, and about trends. It never says don’t pay your 1040 taxes. For me personally, I have always filed because like most people I have been conditioned to file. And I am still filing (tomorrow) because the IRS has the guns, the lawyers and the prisons. Since I will have to pay taxes under a Fair Tax anyways, I choose to pay 1040 taxes until the Fair Tax is passed. But I will protest the unconstitutionality of the 1040 taxes as it is my constitutional right to do so.
So the first step for people is to wake up.
Why hasn’t this been uncovered before? Because the tax code has been reorganized 5 times since 1919 and each time the references and sources get muddled. But there are other data sources such as the ‘United States Statutes at Large’ that show clearly there were never original source laws to back up alot of the IRS code in existence today.
And the second reason is that the original individual income tax that was imposed in 1913 had these tax brackets:
Income level Tax rate
up to $20,000 1%
$20,000 - $50,000 2%
$50,000 - $75,000 3%
$75,000 - $100,000 4%
$100,000 - $250,000 5%
$250,000 - $500,000 6%
over $500,000 7%
And more importantly more than 99% of Americans did not file.
Since the simplicity of that time we have seen the IRS grow into a KGB type of organization. Good people get ensnared and come out ruined even if they hold up in court because the attorney fees alone are a killer.
Today we have kids mowing grass who don’t even have bank accounts getting a 1099 reported to the IRS and they have to file a 1040 and Schedule E and send in both sides of FICA (6.2% each, 12.4%).
Because the IRS is now invading everyone’s life to an intolerable degree, people have started to fight back. And the first extraordinary discovery was that there is no ORIGINAL SOURCE PUBLIC LAW that authorized the mess we have today. It’s a discovery that is now making its way through blogs on the internet and it will make the theatres this summer. But you can see the film on the internet for free now.
So as long as the IRS early in its history was low keyed, people went along with its demands. Now it’s a different story.
Don't forget, 2.9% Medicare.
Right now there is a group of high powered lawyers that is kicking the IRS’s tail in court.....Right now IRS is trying to suppress the info of these cases so they don’t get publicized.
LOL!
And the first extraordinary discovery was that there is no ORIGINAL SOURCE PUBLIC LAW that authorized the mess we have today.
What about the 16th Amendment? Was that real?
Are you going to explain why he needs to use a guy who was disbarred from practice before the IRS and had his CPA ticket yanked by California like Joe Banister?
Are you going to explain why he needs to use a three-time convicted tax felon like Irwin Schiff?
Are you going to explain why he has to rely on a CPA who was raided by IRS CID like Jackson and a nut-ball conspirazoid like Griffin?
All you say about them is:
extremely credible people in it including (...) former IRS agents (...) reputable authors
"Former IRS agents" would be Banister and Jackson. Griffin is reputable only in his own mind.
You have nothing to lose by watching it.
It's called your time, which you can never get back. It could also be your money or your freedom, if someone is dumb enough to follow the real agenda of this propaganda which is that you don't have to pay taxes. This propaganda is worse than anything the idiotic Michael Moore ever put together. At least with his propaganda all you can lose is the time to watch it.
Others on FR have watched it and came back to say it appeared legit to them. Many have said it was a big eye-opener
Which only proves that there are some not-too-bright people around here.
This is a new movement and this is the ground floor of it
No it isn't. Tax protesters have been around for at least 50 years. Most of the leaders of the last 10 years are now in federal prison.
Right now there is a group of high powered lawyers that is kicking the IRS’s tail in court. And that was just last year. They have filled their schedules for the next years to kick them again and again.
Why do you keep bringing up the thoroughly debunked Lawrence OMB number case? Did you read the dozen or so OMB cases I cited and excerpted above? They're all losers. Nobody has ever won and Lawrence wouldn't have been the first, as the judge in the Lawrence case made clear when he denied Stilley's motion for fees.
Speaking of Stilley, Lawrence's lawyer is already quite familiar with sanctions for misconduct. And he lost his appeal to the 8th Circuit of sanctions imposed by a federal district court:
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2816
Oscar Stilley, Appellant, Appeal from the United States
v. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
Submitted: May 25, 2006
Filed: May 26, 2006
Before ARNOLD, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Attorney Oscar Stilley appeals the district court's imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We find no abuse of discretion in the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990). We are troubled by Stilley's mischaracterization of the record as to the applicability of Rule 11's safe-harbor provision and Rule 11(c)(1)(B). We reject Stilley's argument that the limitations the district court imposed on his practice constitute attorney discipline, as opposed to Rule 11 sanctions. See Stilley v. James, 48 Fed. Appx. 595, 597 (8th Cir. 2002) (unpublished per curiam) (finding no abuse of discretion in applying appropriately fashioned Rule 11 sanctions enjoining Stilley from filing future cases involving issues that had been litigated or raised in three lawsuits and two appeals; court acted appropriately by helping stop Stilley's pursuit of fruitless litigation). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Pretty obvious why Stilley took the Lawrence case. He, like you, enjoys tilting at windmills. I'll guess that there are more sanctions in his future.
working around the clock to discredit people
LOL. People like Banister, Schiff, Jackson, Stilley and Schulz have all discredited themselves with no help from me or anyone else.
Because the tax code has been reorganized 5 times since 1919 and each time the references and sources get muddled.M
Cite the case that found so much as a single word of 26 USC unconstitutional.
But there are other data sources such as the ‘United States Statutes at Large’ that show clearly there were never original source laws to back up alot of the IRS code in existence today.
Name one provision in 26 USC that is not backed up by enacted legislation. Just one. Thousands of very smart lawyers have had 50 years to do it and save their clients hundreds of millions of dollars. They haven't done it. But you have the magic formula. LOL.
Today we have kids mowing grass who don’t even have bank accounts getting a 1099 reported to the IRS and they have to file a 1040 and Schedule E and send in both sides of FICA (6.2% each, 12.4%).
No kid or any other independent contractor gets a 1099 unless they earned more than $600 from a single customer. So what? It's the law. It's been the law for decades. If the same kid had worked at McDonald's, he would have had employee FICA withheld which would not be refunded. So what? It's the law.
I have no problem with people who support tax simplification and/or reduction, in fact I support it.
What I do have a problem with is Russo's garbage and people like you who pimp it while spouting totally frivolous and ridiculous tax protester nonsense which only discredit the entire flat-tax/NRST/tax-simplication effort.
Scott Kennedy
*
Former Mayor of Santa Cruz, California
*
Refers to the 1948 creation of Israel as “The Catastrophe”
The former Mayor of Santa Cruz, California, Scott Kennedy regularly used his position in government to push a pro-Islamist agenda. As Vice Mayor, he wrote a letter to Days Inn condemning the latter’s interest in a seaside hotel located in a Jewish section of the Gaza Strip. As a Council Member, he wrote a letter to then-Vice President Al Gore, calling on him to refrain from using the Islamic term for holy war, “jihad,” in a negative fashion. Kennedy has compared the creation of the state of Israel, which he calls “the catastrophe,” to the Holocaust. He was a co-founder of the Resource Center for Nonviolence in Santa Cruz, and he is a leader of the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) Interfaith Peace-Builders Delegation.
On October 9, 2002, Scott Kennedy was part of an FOR delegation that met with Palestinian President Yasser Arafat (see photo of Kennedy with Arafat on this page) in his compound in Ramallah, West Bank. When later recounting the conclusion of his meeting with Arafat, Kennedy repeatedly made reference to Arafat’s charm and graciousness. “We excused ourselves,” said Kennedy, “thanked Arafat for meeting with us, and stood.
I doubt this has anything to do with the war but more to do with people who don’t want to pay taxes, period.
******
War Resisters League
339 Lafayette Street
New York, NY 10012
Believing war to be a crime against humanity, the War Resisters League, founded in 1923, advocates Gandhian nonviolence as the method for creating a democratic society free of war, racism, sexism, and human exploitation.
******
How To Resist War Taxes
Resisting war taxes is really very simple — don’t pay all the tax due on your annual Federal income tax form, or don’t pay the Federal excise tax on telephone bills, or both.
Summarized below are a few war tax resistance methods. Detailed descriptions can be found in WRL’s War Tax Resistance: A Guide to Withholding Your Support from the Military and through war tax counselors. Contact the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee (NWTRCC) for counselors in your area. The probability of collection or prosecution varies among the methods; all — except #4 — are illegal. Serious consideration must be given before embarking on these types of resistance.
1) File and refuse to pay your taxes. This involves filling out an IRS income tax return (e.g., Form 1040) and refusing to pay either a token amount of your taxes (e.g., $1, $9.11, $100), some “military” portion (approximately 1% for nuclear warheads, 4% for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 30% for current military spending, 50% for current and past military spending combined — see WRL’s pie chart for the latest percentages), or the total amount (since a portion of whatever is paid goes largely to the military). Include a letter of explanation with the return.
2) File a blank IRS 1040 income tax return with a note of explanation.
3) Don’t file any Federal income tax returns.
4) Earn less than the taxable income. However, it is important to organize and speak out on war tax resistance in order to publicize why you have choosen to keep your income low. Also, write letters to the IRS, newspapers, politicians, friends, and relatives.
5) Resist telephone taxes. A number of federal excise taxes are also included in the Federal Budget. These include tobacco and alcohol taxes. But the federal telephone tax has historically been the most clearly related to the ups and downs of military spending. To refuse the federal excise tax, simply subtract that amount from your monthly telephone bill and include a note of explanation to the phone company each time you pay the bill. The phone company is required (by FCC regulations) credit your bill and report this amount to the IRS, but not cut off your telephone service. For more information, see the Hang Up on War! campaign to resist telephone tax (initiated Nov. 2003).
This guy is also a liar...
******
Twenty years ago, Gary Erb decided the federal government spent too much on guns and not enough on the needs of Americans.
He hasn’t paid income tax since.
An individual who makes $7,800 - more or less - a year isn’t required to pay taxes.
Erb recently told about 30 people who attended his workshop on tax avoidance that he lives lean enough to avoid taxes legally.
He relies on part-time jobs, owns no car and lives simply, he said.
“My major expense is rent. That takes up half or more of my income,” Erb said.
******
Gary Erb, a peace activist, is a volunteer tax counselor at the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center in Boulder.
Photo of creep above link
Erb: Don’t pay taxes that fund the war
By Gary Erb
Saturday, March 31, 2007
You pay for war every day you work. Half your income tax is appropriated for war and war debts. The Chinese banks and rich investors who buy the debt are banking on your spending your career paying them more than you will pay to educate your children. George Bush is bent on expanding his war into Iran and Syria. The moral issues of paying war taxes and the issues respecting resisting them must be faced. Here are the issues most often raised.
“While our troops are there, we must support them.” Three out of four of those troops say they should not be there. To stamp out resistance, they must burst into homes in the middle of the night, hold families at gunpoint, ransack the house, take the men away to hell holes, and do other things that make them hated. The resistance thrives on the hate. U.S. troops survive a tour only to go back and be killed. Their replacements are more youth desperate for work and college money.
******
Gary Erb, a peace activist, is a volunteer tax counselor at the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center in Boulder.
Gary Erb served in the air force from 1972 to 1976 and has been a peace activist since 1979. In 1998, the Colorado Council on the Arts honored him with a grant. Gary has self-published 22 collections of poetry; the following poems are taken from his latest, entitled Confessions.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
I presume you've seen the Russo film. Then you know the question that I asked related to the existence of a prima source law, the original law that required the filing of an individual tax return. There has to be a Public Law, not a code section but a Public Law.
In Post #43 you responded with all this:
For instance, take 26 USC 1, which imposes a tax on taxable income. Here's the list of statutes which you claim don't exist:
Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 5; Pub. L. 88–272, title I, § 111, Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 19; Pub. L. 89–809, title I, § 103(a)(2), Nov. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 1550; Pub. L. 91–172, title VIII, § 803(a), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 678; Pub. L. 95–30, title I, § 101(a), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 127; Pub. L. 95–600, title I, § 101(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2767; Pub. L. 97–34, title I, §§ 101(a), 104 (a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 176, 188; Pub. L. 97–448, title I, § 101(a)(3), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2366; Pub. L. 99–514, title I, § 101(a), title III, § 302(a), title XIV, § 1411(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2096, 2218, 2714; Pub. L. 100–647, title I, §§ 1001(a)(3), 1014 (e)(1)–(3), (6), (7), title VI, § 6006(a), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3349, 3561, 3562, 3686; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §§ 7811(j)(1), 7816 (b), 7831 (a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2411, 2420, 2425; Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, §§ 11101(a)–(c), (d)(1)(A), (2), 11103(c), 11104(b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–403 to 1388–406, 1388–408; Pub. L. 103–66, title XIII, §§ 13201(a), (b)(3)(A), (B), 13202 (a), 13206 (d)(2), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 457, 459, 461, 467; Pub. L. 104–188, title I, § 1704(m)(1), (2), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1882, 1883; Pub. L. 105–34, title III, § 311(a), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 831; Pub. L. 105–206, title V, § 5001(a)(1)–(4), title VI, §§ 6005(d)(1), 6007 (f)(1), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 787, 788, 800, 810; Pub. L. 105–277, div. J, title IV, § 4002(i)(1), (3), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–907, 2681–908; Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 117(b)(1)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–604; Pub. L. 107–16, title I, § 101(a), (c)(1), (2), title III, §§ 301(c)(1), 302 (a), (b), June 7, 2001, 115 Stat. 41, 43, 54; Pub. L. 108–27, title I, §§ 102(a), (b)(1), 104 (a), (b), 105 (a), title III, §§ 301(a)(1), (2)(A), (b)(1), 302 (a), (e)(1), May 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 754, 755, 758, 760, 763; Pub. L. 108–311, title I, § 101(c), (d), title IV, §§ 402(a)(1)–(3), 408(a)(1), (2), Oct. 4, 2004, 118 Stat. 1167, 1168, 1184, 1190; Pub. L. 108–357, title IV, § 413(c)(1), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1506.
All of it passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time.
Why did you do this?
I'll fill in for you and you correct me if I am wrong about your purpose for doing so. I said in Post #42 the following:
"There is no law. you can’t find it, it doesn’t exist. USC is code based on laws that Congress passes and a President signs. There is no law behind the USC sections for the personal income tax."
So in your haste to contradict me you took all the above from an online database and pasted it into your Post #43 because you wanted to show there are 'laws' that were passed and signed into law.
Did you know that each and every one of the laws you cited was just an amendment to the code? There is no original source law in them, they are all just amendments.
Here's the problem: you saw the Russo film so you knew what I was asking and you knew I wasn't asking for a bunch of amendment law, right? Of course right. But you decided to copy and paste all the amendment law references into your post, to do what? To confuse the issue. That's what is called being 'disingenuous' at best.
Now I'll let you respond to that and will go with the next item.
The courts have repeatedly and emphatically said that you're dead wrong:
Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable. US v. McDonald, 919 F2d 146 10th Cir '90
Congress’s failure to enact a title [of the United States Code] into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryan’s rights by enforcing it. Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 9th Cir '85
The petitioner’s argument that the Internal Revenue Code was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time. Urban v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F2d 888 9th Cir '92
On appeal he [Scott] makes the same arguments advanced and rejected countless times in tax protestor litigation, such as that the Tax Code is not binding “positive law,” and wages are exempt from taxation because they are not income. US v. Scott, '99 US App LEXIS 16877; 99-2 US Tax Cas (CCH) P50,745; 84 AFTR2d (RIA) 5342, 7th Cir '99
The appellant’s argument regarding the validity of Title 26 is frivolous. The validity of Title 26 is not affected merely because it has not been codified as ‘positive law’.” Hackett v. Commissioner, 791 F2d 933 6th Cir '86
The claim that Title 26 was not enacted into ‘positive law,’ has been rejected as ‘frivolous,’ ‘baseless,’ ‘specious,’ and ‘preposterous.’ US v. Maczka, 957 FSupp 988, 991 WDMich '96
See, after there's a long line of decisions saying the same thing, the argument becomes frivolous. Just like your stupid OMB number argument is frivolous, so is the idea that the IRC is not validly enacted. The IRS has gotten tired of all of the stupid tax protester questions and claims and has issued a notice of what they consider to be frivolous.
Guess what?
ALL of your various "arguments" made the frivolous list. Using any one of them on a tax return will get you a $5,000 penalty:
Positions that are the same as or similar to the positions listed in this Notice are identified as frivolous for purposes of the penalty for a “frivolous tax return” under section 6702(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and the penalty for a “specified frivolous submission” under section 6702(b).
< snip >
Frivolous Positions. Positions that are the same as or similar to the following are frivolous.
(1) Compliance with the internal revenue laws is voluntary or optional and not required by law, including arguments that:
a. Filing a Federal tax or information return or paying tax is purely voluntary under the law, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B.
< snip >
c. There is no legal requirement to file a Federal income tax return because the instructions to Forms 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ or the Treasury regulations associated with the filing of the forms do not display an OMB control number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq., or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2006-21, 2006-15 I.R.B. 745.
< snip >
(2) The Internal Revenue Code is not law (or “positive law”) or its provisions are ineffective or inoperative, including the sections imposing an income tax or requiring the filing of tax returns, because the provisions have not been implemented by regulations even though the provisions in question either (a) do not expressly require the Secretary to issue implementing regulations to become effective or (b) expressly require implementing regulations which have been issued.
< snip >
You're three for three! You win the prize for spouting the most tax protester nonsense so far this year.
sez it all.
He’s worked the past two summers mowing lawns for a large residential real estate developer. They pay him on a 1099. Therefore, although he doesn’t make enough to pay income tax, he does have to pay self-employment tax (e.g. both halves of FICA).
Since he doesn’t have a checking account, he’ll be handing me ~$150 cash so I can write the check on his behalf.
Really? I thought the threshold income EVEN FOR FILING was 8000 dollars for a single person, which would equal 16% * 8000 = about 1280 dollars. If he is paying 150 dollars on 16 (15.5%?) then that is gross income of only about a thousand dollars. He should keep the money and just not file. Then again, I may not have all the picture.
I am longing for the day when all the old hippies have finally died off.
I asked you a simple question. Why did you copy and paste a bunch of amendment law in your Post#43?
Please answer, it’s a SIMPLE question.
Not filing would be not only immoral but doubly unwise, given that his earnings were reported to the IRS on Form 1099-MISC.
Then again, I may not have all the picture.
It sounds like you're thinking only of income tax. As you suspected, he's under the threshold and does not pay income tax.
What he's paying is the self-employment tax on Schedule SE. Like I said, that's basically both halves of the Social Security tax (15.3% of his earnings). As you may know, there is no minimum threshold for exemption from the self-employment tax. For Social Security, the gov't taxes the first dollar we earn.
Nope.
Generally, if you have less than $400 of SE income you don't have to pay any SE tax. So, at $399.99 of SE income, the SE tax is zero. At $400.00, the tax will be $400 * 92.35% * 15.3%, which is $56.52.
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.
